Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

Home , Deflexion (linguistics), Russian grammar

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORICAL SYNTAX OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Daniel Petit (ENS & EPHE, Paris)

INTRODUCTION

• Calvert Watkins (1963): ‘Syntax is notoriously ignored in most studies of comparative and historical linguistics’. • Wolfgang Dressler (1971): ‘In der Indogermanistik wird die Syntax noch immer stiefmütterlich behandelt und zumeist als Anhängsel der Morphologie betrachtet’. • April McMahon (1994:10): ‘Diachronic syntax lays, like the Sleeping Beauty, in a deathlike coma for the first half of this century’ • David Lightfoot (1979:305): ‘Certainly there was no tradition of work on syntactic change and, despite isolated discussions, it was not until the 1970s that syntactic change became an area of communal work among linguists’. • Werner Winter (1984)

A. THE COMPARATIVE METHOD

Internal analysis External analysis Comparison Internal comparison of A2 with A1 External comparison of A with B < Cx Reconstruction Internal reconstruction of language A < Ax External reconstruction of language A+ B < C Description Internal description of language A External description of language C?

Internal comparison of A2 with A1 External comparison of A with B < C

Internal reconstruction of language A External reconstruction of language C

Internal description of language A External description of language C?

1. Internal Description 1.1. Constituency Tests: ‘Internal Object’ / ‘Cognate Object’ (1) English They fought a heroic fight. (2) English † A heroic fight was fought by them. (3) Ancient Greek: Plato, Republic, 551d (cf. already Homer, Iliad, Β 121 and Γ 435) πόλεμόν τινα πολεμίζειν ‘to wage war (to war some war)’ pólemón tina polemízein war-ACC.SG some-ACC.SG to war-INF (4) Ancient Greek: Xenophon, Hellenica, 5, 1, 1 Ὁ πόλεμος ἐπολεμεῖτο. ‘The war was being carried on.’ Ho pólemos epolemeĩto. the-NOM.SG war-NOM.SG was warred-IND.IMPERF.PASS.3SG 2 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(5) Latin: Plautus, Pseudolus, 254 Malam pugnam pugnabo. ‘I will fight a bad fight.’ bad-ACC.SG fight-ACC.SG I will fight-IND.FUT.1SG (6) Latin: Plautus, Amphitryon, 253 (cf. Pinkster 2015:86) Haec est pugnata pugna this-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG having been fought-PART.NOM.SG fight-NOM.SG usque a mani ad uesperum. until from morning-ABL.SG till evening-ACC.SG ‘This fight was fought there from morning till evening’ (7) Ancient Greek: Herodotus, Historiae, 3, 154 Ἑωυτὸν λωβᾶται λώβην ἀνήκεστον. Heōutòn lōbā̃tai lṓ bēn anḗkeston. himself-ACC.SG he mutilates-IND.PRS.3SG mutilation-ACC.SG irreparable-ACC.SG ‘He mutilates himself a mutilation beyond repair.’ (8) Ancient Greek: Plato, Gorgias, 473c ἄλλας πολλὰς καὶ μεγάλας καὶ παντοδαπὰς állas pollàs kaì megálas kaì pantodapàs other-ACC.PL many-ACC.PL and big-ACC.PL and of every kind-ACC.PL λώβας λωβηθείς lṓ bas lōbētheís mutilations-ACC.PL mutilated-PART.AOR.PASS.NOM.SG ‘having being mutilated a number of grevious mutilations of every kind’ (9) Ancient Greek: Euripides, Helena, 1041 Τίνα φυγὴν φευξούμεθα ; Tína phugḕn pheuksoúmetha? which-ACC.SG escape-ACC.SG will we escape-IND.FUT.1PL ‘How will we escape?’ (lit. ‘which escape will we escape?’) (10) Ancient Greek: Plato, Epinomis, 974b Ἡ δὲ φυγῇ φεύγει τότε ὅταν τις Hē dè phugē̃i pheúgei tóte hótan tis she-NOM.FEM.SG PCLE escape-DAT.SG escapes-IND.PRS.3SG then when someone-NOM.SG πρός τινα φρόνησιν ἴῃ. prós tina phrónēsin íē̃i. towards some-ACC.SG knowledge-ACC.SG goes-SUBJ.PRS.3SG ‘But it (i.e. this power) escapes us with an escape as soon as we attempt any knowledge.’ (11) Latin: Terence, Eunuchus, 586-587 Luserat / iam olim ille ludum. he had played-IND.PLUPERF.3SG already previously that one-NOM.SG game-ACC.SG ‘As in former times he had played the like game.’ (12) Latin: Plautus, Mostellaria, 1158 Scis solere illanc aetatem tali ludo ludere. you know-IND.PRS.2SG use to-INF that-ACC.SG age-ACC.SG such-ABL.SG game-ABL.SG play-INF ‘You know that age uses to play such a game.’ (13) Young Avestan: Yašt 15, 40 yauuata gaiia juuāuua ‘as long as we live our life’ as long as life-INSTR.SG we live-IND.PRS.1DU (14) Old Church Slavic: Mc. 5, 42 Zogr. И оужаснѫшѧ сѧ оужасомь вельѥмь. I oužasnǫšę sę oužasomь velьjemь. and they were surprised-IND.AOR.3PL=REFL surprise-INSTR.SG great-INSTR.SG ‘And they were overcome with a great astonishment.’ (= Greek ἐξέστησαν ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ)

(15) Old Lithuanian: Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (1599: 42040-41) berne̗ lei sawû mirimú / arba smercʒiâ / numire̗ boys-NOM.PL their-INSTR.SG death-INSTR.SG [or death-INSTR.SG] dead-PART.PST.NOM.PL ‘boys who are dead their own death’ Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 3

(16) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, Lk. 2, 9 Ohtedun agisa mikilamma. they were afraid-IND.PST.3PL fear-DAT.SG great-DAT.SG ‘They were afraid a great fear.’ (= Greek ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν) (17) Old English: Old English Chronicle, an. 755 (cf. Visser 1963, 21970:413) He feaht miclum feohtum. ‘He fights a big fight.’ he fights-IND.PRS.3SG big-DAT.SG fight-DAT.SG (18) Icelandic (cf. Maling 2009:75) Hann svaf djúpum svefni. ‘He slept a deep sleep.’ he slept-IND.PST.3SG deep-DAT.SG sleep-DAT.SG • Cf. τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον toũton tòn trópon (acc.) and τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ toútōi tō̃i trópōi (dat.) ‘in that way’. 1.2. Original Texts and Translations (19) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, Jn. 18, 2 (cf. Mk. 14, 44, with ellipsis of the object) Iudas sa galewjands ina Judas-NOM.SG the-NOM.SG betraying-PART.ACT.NOM.SG him-ACC.SG ‘Judas, the one betraying him’ (= Greek Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτόν) (20) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, Mt. 5, 44 Þiuþjaiþ þans wrikandans izwis be good-OPT.PRS.2PL the-ACC.PL harassing-PART.ACT.ACC.PL you-ACC.PL ‘Pray for those who harass you!’ (= Greek εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς) (21) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, Gal. 6, 6 sa laisida waurda the-NOM.SG taught-PART.PASS.NOM.SG words-ACC.PL ‘the one who is taught the word’ (= Greek ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον) 1.3. Poetic Syntax: PIE Tmesis

a. Pattern 1: [#P-Xx-V] = the preverb occupies the initial position in the sentence and is separated from the verb by an open number of words.

b. Pattern 2: [-P-X1-V] = the preverb is not located in initial position, but somewhere in the sentence and is separated from the verb by one single word. c. Pattern 3: all abnormal realisations of tmesis in Homer and the Rigveda, including ‘prepositional tmesis’, ‘reverse tmesis’ (or ‘verbal anastrophe’) and ‘defusional tmesis’.

Pattern 1 [#P-Xx-V] (22) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Γ 34 Ὑπό τε τρόμος ἔλλαβε γυῖα. Hupó te trómos éllabe guĩa. under-PREV and trembling-NOM.SG seized-IND.AOR.3SG limbs-NOM.SG ‘And trembling seized his limbs beneath him.’ (ὑπὸ... ἔλλαβε hupò... éllabe ‘it seized’)

(23) Vedic Sanskrit: RV X 1273 Nír u svásāram askr̥ ta / Usạ́ saṃ devī́ āyatī́. under-PREV PCLE sister-ACC.SG raised-IND.AOR.3SG dawn-ACC.SG goddess-NOM.SG coming-NOM.SG ‘The goddess, as she came, has raised her sister, the dawn.’ (nír...askr̥ ta ‘has raised’)

Pattern 2 [-P-X1-V] (24) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Π 82 Φίλον δ’ ἀπὸ νόστον ἕλωνται. Phílon d’ apò nóston hélōntai. desired-ACC.SG and PREV. return-ACC.SG they rob-SUBJ.PRS.3PL ‘that they rob [the Greeks] of their desired return’ (ἀπὸ... ἕλωνται apò... hélōntai ‘they rob’)

(25) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 924 Gā́ vo ná vrajáṃ ví usạ̄ ́ āvar támah.̣ cows-NOM.PL as stall-ACC.SG PREV. dawn-NOM.SG opened-IND.AOR.3SG darkness-ACC.SG ‘Dawn has opened darkness as the cows their stall.’ (ví...āvar ‘has opened’) 4 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(26) Latin: Lucretius, De Natura Rerum IV, 832 Cetera de genere hoc inter quaecumque pretantur. others-NOM.PL of kind-ABL.SG this-ABL.SG inter-PREV whatever-NOM.PL are (inter)preted-IND.PRS.3PL ‘all the other things that are interpreted that way’ (inter-...pretantur ‘are interpreted’) Pattern 3: Prepositional Tmesis (27) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey, λ 115 Δήεις δ’ ἐν πήματα οἴκῳ. Dḗeis d’ en pḗmata oíkōi. you will find-IND.FUT.2SG and in-PREP. sufferings-ACC.PL house-DAT.SG ‘And you will find sufferings at home.’ (ἐν... οἴκῳ en...oíkōi ‘at home’) Pattern 3: ‘Reverse tmesis’ (verbal anastrophe) (28) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Β 699 τότε δ’ ἤδη ἔχεν κάτα γαῖα μέλαινα. tóte d’ ḗdē ékhen káta gaĩa mélaina. then and already held-IND.IMPERF.3SG under-POSTV earth-NOM.SG black-NOM.SG ‘And then the black earth held him fast.’ (ἔχεν κάτα ékhen káta = κάτ-εχεν kát-ekhen ‘held fast’) (29) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey, γ 161 ὅς ῥ’ ἔριν ὦρσε κακὴν ἔπι δεύτερον αὖτις hós rh’ érin ō̃rse kakḕn épi deúteron aũtis who-NOM.SG PCLE quarrell-ACC.SG raised-IND.AOR.3SG bad-ACC.SG on-POSTV twice again ‘who raised evil quarrel again a second time’ (ὦρσε...ἔπι ō̃rse...épi = ἐπ-ῶρσεν ep-ō̃rsen ‘raised up’)

(30) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 853 Bā́ dhante víśvam abhimātínam ápa. they drive-IND.PRS.3PL each-ACC.SG adversary-ACC.SG away ‘They drive off each adversary.’ (bā́ dhante...ápa ‘they drive...off’) Pattern 3: ‘Defusional Tmesis’ • Greek adverb διαμπερές diamperés ‘without break, continuously’ (e.g. Iliad, Π 499, etc.), tmesis in διὰ δ’ ἀμπερές dià d’ amperés (Iliad, Λ 377, Ρ 309, Odyssey, φ 422). (31) Latin: Virgilius, Georgics III, 381 septem subiecta trioni ‘submitted to the Septentrio’ seven- submitted-NOM.FEM.SG -trio-DAT.SG (32) Latin: Ennius, Annales 609 Saxo cere- comminuit -brum. ‘He broke the brain with a stone.’ stone-DAT.SG cere- he broke-IND.PERF.3SG brum Clitic interposition (insertion of a clitic between a preverb and a verb) (33) Hittite: KBo XVII 18 II 13-[15] Para-[m]a-aš pa-iz-zi. PREV=and=he-NOM.SG goes-IND.PRS.3SG ‘He goes forward.’ (para-...paizzi ‘he goes forward’, interposition of the clitics -ma- ‘and’ and -aš ‘he’) (34) Old Irish: Echtrae Chonnlai § 13, 79-80 (ed. McCone 2000) Ro-m-gab dano éolchaire immon mnái. PREV=me=seized-IND.PST.3SG yet longing-NOM.SG for=the-DAT.SG woman-DAT.SG ‘Yet longing for the woman has seized me.’ (ro-...-gab ‘it seized’ interposition of the clitic -m- ‘to me’) (35) Lithuanian Ap-sì-rengiau. PREV=REFL=dress-IND.PST.1SG ‘I dressed myself.’ (ap-...-rengiau ‘I dressed’, interposition of the clitic reflexive particle -si- ‘oneself’) (36) Ossetic (Digor dialect) Ӕра-сӕ-фарста. Æra-sæ-farsta. PREV=them=asked-IND.PST.3SG ‘He asked them.’ (æra-...-farsta ‘he asked’, interposition of the clitic -sæ- ‘them’) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 5

[#P-C-Xx-V#]

Poetic language Common language [#...-P-Xx-V-...#] [#...-P-C-V-...#]

2. Internal Reconstruction • Donald Ringe (2005:244): ‘exploitation of patterns in the synchronic grammar of a single language or dialect to recover information about its prehistory’. Cf. Pisani (1938), Hoenigswald (1944), Chafe (1959), Kuryłowicz (1964, cf. also 1973), Rasmussen & Olander (2009). • Anthony Fox (1995:146): ‘the rather poor relation of the Comparative Method’ • Brigitte Bauer (2008:18): ‘Synchronic variants are evaluated on the basis of the assumption that a language at a given stage – or at a given stage of reconstruction – includes material that reflects different layers of development.’ 2.1. ‘Evidential’ vs ‘Inferential Clues’

• ‘Evidential clues’: competition between an archaic form or pattern A1 and a more recent form or pattern A2 / ‘inferential clues’: existence of previous forms or patterns that are not preserved as such. 2.2. Syntactic Archaism of Proverbs (37) Classical Greek: Plato, Symposium, Π 82 ἵνα καὶ τὴν παροιμίαν διαφθείρωμεν μεταβαλόντες, hína kaì tḕn paroimíān diaphtheírōmen metabalóntes, so that also the-ACC.SG proverb-ACC.SG we corrupt-SUBJ.PRS.1PL changing-PART.AOR.NOM.PL ὡς ἄρα καὶ « Ἀγαθῶν ἐπὶ δαῖτας ἴασιν αὐτόματοι ἀγαθοί » hōs ára kaì Agathō̃n epì daĩtas íasin autómatoi agathoí that PCLE also : good men-GEN.PL at feasts-ACC.PL go-IND.PRS.3PL self-acting-NOM.PL good men-NOM.PL ‘...so that we might corrupt and modify the proverb: « The good men go of their own accord to the good men’s feast. »’ (38) Classical Greek: Isocrates, 1, 6 Κάλλος μὲν γὰρ ἢ χρόνος ἀνήλωσεν Kállos mèn gàr ḕ khrónos anḗlōsen beauty-ACC.SG PCLE PCLE either time-NOM.SG wasted-IND.AOR.3SG ἢ νόσος ἐμάρανε. ḕ nósos emárane. or disease-NOM.SG withered-IND.AOR.3SG ‘For beauty is either wasted by time or withered by disease.’ Modification of proverbs 1250: Brend child fuir fordredeth. 1410: For brent child dredith fyer. 1484: Brent chylde fyre dredeth. 1515: For children brent still after drede the fire. 1546: And burnt childe fyre dredth. 1580: A burnt childe dreadeth the fire. 1614: Burnt child fire dreades. 1670: The burnt child dreads the fire. 1855: It’s only the child that burns its fingers that dreads the fire. 1913: As a burnt child would recoil from fire. 1935: He’s a burnt child who dreads the fire. 1975: A burnt child dreads the fire. 2.3. Phraseological Collocations (39) Old Icelandic: Edda, Atlamál in grœnlenzko, 99, 3 Oss á hǫnd gengo. us-DAT.PL in hand-ACC.SG went-IND.PST.3PL ‘They did us service.’ (< ‘they went to us in hands’, without article in á hǫnd ‘in hands’) 6 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(40) Classical Armenian: Mt. 2, 2 Եւ եկաք երկիր պագանել նմա. Ew ekakʻ erkir paganel nma. and we came-IND.AOR.1PL earth-ACC.SG to kiss-INF him-DAT.SG ‘And we came to worship him.’ (< ‘to kiss earth for him’, with երկիր պագանել erkir paganel ‘to kiss earth’, without article on երկիր erkir ‘earth’) (= Gr. ἤλθομεν προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ) (41) Classical Armenian: Lk. 11, 7 Մի աշխատ առներ զիս. Mi ašxat aṙ ner z-is. NEG.PROHIB tiredness-ACC.SG make-IMPER.PRS.2SG OBJ=me-ACC.SG ‘Do not tire me out!’ (< ‘Do not make tiredness + me’) (= Gr. Μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε)

2.4. Coexistence of A1 and A2: ‘be-languages’ vs ‘have-languages’ (Isačenko 1974) (42) Origins of the verb ‘to have’: Ancient Greek ἔχω ékhō (< PIE *seg̑ h- ‘to hold’, cf. Vedic Sanskrit sáhati ‘to hold back’); Lat. habeō (< PIE *ghabh-, cf. Old Irish gaibim ‘to grasp’, Lith. gabénti ‘to transport, to carry’); Old High German habēn (< PIE *kh2p-eh1-, cf. Lat. capiō ‘to grasp, to seize’); Old Church Slavic имѣти iměti (< PIE *h1°m-eh1-, cf. Old Church Slavic ѩти jęti, Lith. im̃ ti ‘to take, to seize’); Lithuanian turė́ti (< PIE *tur-eh1-, cf. Lith. tvérti ‘to grasp, to enclose’); Albanian kam (< PIE *ku̯ eh2- ‘to possess’, cf. Gr. dial. πέπᾱμαι pépāmai ‘I possess’); Arm. ունիմ ownim (< PIE *h1e-h1op-, cf. Vedic Sanskrit āpnóti ‘to reach, to gain’). (43) Latin: Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 717 (cf. Bauer 2000:159) Tibi sunt gemini. ‘You have twins.’ to you-DAT.SG are-IND.PRS.3PL twins-NOM.PL (44) Latin: Plautus, Bacchides, 333 Tantas diuitias habet. ‘He has so many riches.’ such-ACC.PL riches-ACC.PL he has-IND.PRS.3SG (45) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Χ 293 Οὐδ’ ἄλλ’ ἔχε μείλινον ἔγχος ‘But he had no spear of ash.’ Oud’ áll’ ékhe meílinon énkhos. NEG other he had-IND.IMPERF.3SG of ash-ACC.SG spear-ACC.SG (46) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Ι 144 Τρεῖς δέ μοι εἰσὶ θύγατρες. ‘I have three daughters.’ Treĩs dé moi eisì thúgatres. three-NOM.PL PCLE to me-DAT.SG are-IND.PRS.3PL daughters-NOM.PL (47) Old Lithuanian: Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (1579-1590: Gn. 19, 8) Schitai, man ira dwi Dukteri. ‘Behold, I have two daughters.’ behold to me-DAT.SG are-IND.PRS.3 two-NOM.DU daughters-NOM.DU (48) Old Lithuanian: Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (1579-1590: Ex. 2, 16) Plebonas Madiane turreia septines Dukteres. priest-NOM.SG Madian-LOC.SG had-IND.PST.3 seven-ACC.PL daughters-ACC.PL ‘A priest in Madian had seven daughters.’ • Brigitte Bauer (2000:183, 185): the mihi est-construction ‘refers predominantly to an animate, and more specifically a human being’, the habeo-construction ‘to concrete objects and persons’.

2.5. Coexistence of A1 and A2: Lithuanian Preposition į + acc. ‘into, to’ vs. Illative Case (49) Lithuanian eĩti į̃ píevą ‘to go to the meadow’ to go-INF into meadow-ACC.SG (50) Lithuanian eĩti píevon ‘to go to the meadow’ to go-INF meadow-ILL.SG • Illative: píevon (< accusative *pievān ‘meadow’ + postposition *-nā ‘to’) vs. preposition: į̃ píevą (< *in pievān = Latin in + ACC., Gothic in + ACC.) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 7

2.6. ‘Inferential Clues’: The Tocharian Secondary Cases (51) Tocharian B (cf. Pinault 2008:467; see also Krause & Thomas 1960:I 92) krent pelaiknene ‘in the good law’ good-OBL.SG law-LOC.SG (52) Tocharian B: 496, 3a sanai ṣaryompa ‘with my only beloved’ alone-OBL.SG beloved-COMIT.SG (53) Tocharian B: 107, 11 spharīräṣṣe aisemeṃ ‘from the crystal pot’ crystal-OBL.SG pot-ABL.SG (54) Tocharian B (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960:I 91, Pinault 2008:466) kektseñ reki palskosa ‘through body, word and thought’ body-OBL.SG word-OBL.SG thought-PERL.SG (55) Tocharian B (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960:I 92, Pinault 2008:467) kreñcepi wnolmentse ‘of a good creature’ good-GEN.SG creature-GEN.SG (56) Tocharian B *krent pelaikne -ne ‘in the good law’ good-OBL.SG law-OBL.SG =in-POSTP • Tocharian B: locative ending *-ne < postposition *no (cf. Slavic preposition на na ‘on’ < PIE *nō) (57) Tocharian B (cf. Pinault 2008 467) kreñt wnolmentse ‘of a good creature’ good-OBL.SG creature-GEN.SG (58) Tocharian A: TEB 17.19, § 28 ṣñi ṣñaṣṣesā ortāsā ‘by his parents and friends’ of him-GEN.SG parents-PERL.PL friends-PERL.PL

3. Internal Comparison 3.1. Continuity of the Documentation: Reflexivity in Greek (*su̯ e) (59) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey ν 320 (‘in his own breast’ = ‘in my breast’) Ἀλλ’ αἰεὶ φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἔχων δεδαϊγμένον ἦτορ All’ aieì phresìn hē̃isin ékhōn dedaïgménon ē̃tor but always breast-DAT.PL own-DAT.PL having-PART.NOM.SG stricken-ACC.SG heart-ACC.SG / ἠλώμην. / ēlṓ men. I wandered-IND.IMPERF.1SG ‘I always wandered, having in my breast a stricken heart.’ (60) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Ο 64 (‘his friend’) Ὁ δ’ ἀνστήσει ὃν ἑταῖρον. Ho d’ anstḗsei hòn hetaĩron. this one-NOM.SG PCLE will arouse-IND.FUT.3SG his-ACC.SG friend-ACC.SG ‘He will arouse his friend.’ (61) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Ε 212-213 (‘my native land’) Ἐσόψομαι ὀφθαλμοῖσιν / πατρίδ’ ἐμήν. Esópsomai ophthalmoĩsin / patríd’ emḗn. I will see-IND.FUT.1SG with the eyes-DAT.PL native land-ACC.SG mine-ACC.SG ‘I will see with my eyes my fatherland.’ (62) Ancient Greek: Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus 141 (‘myself’) Ἐμαυτòν ὠφελῶ. ‘I serve myself.’ Emautòn ōphelō̃. myself-ACC.SG I serve-IND.PRS.1SG (63) Ancient Greek: Xenophon, Cyropedia 7, 3, 14 (‘himself, herself’) Σφάττει ἑαυτήν. ‘She kills herself.’ Spháttei heautḗn. she kills-IND.PRS.3SG herself-ACC.SG 8 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(64) New Testament Greek: 2Cor. 13, 5 Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε. ‘Test yourselves.’ Heautoùs peirázete. themselves-ACC.PL test-IMPER.PRS.2PL (65) Medieval Greek: Theodoros Prodromos, Opera Omnia, I 276 Τρέφε τὸν ἑαυτόν σου. ‘Feed yourself.’ Tréphe tòn heautón sou. feed-IMPER.PRS.2SG the-ACC.SG self-ACC.SG of you-GEN.SG Evolution in Greek (1) A general reflexive not marked in person (vestiges in Homer). (2) A third person reflexive pronoun and no distinct expression of reflexivity in the other persons (Homer). (3) A distinct expression of reflexivity for each person (Classical Greek). (4) A general reflexive used indistinctly for all persons (New Testament). (5) A reflexive substantive followed by personal markers (Modern Greek). 3.2. Discontinuity of the Documentation: Slovenian Subordination and Clitics (66) Slovenian (cf. Herrity 2000:343) Ker ga je domá zéblo, because him-ACC.SG is-IND.PRS.3.SG at home-ADV cold-NOM.NEUT.SG je šèl v kavárno. is-IND.PRS.3.SG gone-PART.NOM.SG to coffee shop-ACC.SG ‘Because he felt cold at home, he went to the coffee shop.’ (67) Old Slovenian: Brižinski Spomeniki, 158v, 1-3 Eccȩ bi δetd naſ ne-ɀe/greſil if COND.PCLE forefather-NOM.SG our-NOM.SG NEG-having sinned-PART.NOM.SG τe-v-ueki-gemu-be / ſiti. then=for-ever=to him-DAT.SG=would be-COND.3SG. to live-INF ‘If our forefather had not sinned, then he would have lived for ever.’ (68) 16th century Slovenian: Primož Trubar, Ta Celi Novi testament (1582), Mtt. 12, 2 Kadar tu ty farizei zagledaio, when that-ACC.SG the-NOM.PL Pharisees-NOM.PL see-IND.PRS.3.PL so k nemu rekli. are-IND.PRS.3.PL to him-DAT.SG having said-PART.NOM.PL ‘When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him.’

3.3. Directional Illusion: Interpreting A1 in the light of A2 (‘retrospective illusion’) • Romance definite article < Latin demonstrative ille ‘that’ (cf. Spanish el, la, Portuguese o, a, Italian il/lo, la, Rheto-Romance il, la, French le, la and Romanian -l, -a) or emphatic ipse ‘self’ (cf. Sardinian su, sa and similar forms in some Catalan dialects) (69) Late Latin: Theodosius, De Situ Terrae Sanctae, 68 (ca 530 CE, ed. Gildemeister 1882:25) Memoria sancti Helisaei, ubi fontem illum monument-NOM.SG of Saint-GEN.SG Helisaeus-GEN.SG where fountain-ACC.SG that-ACC.SG benedixit, ibi est, et super ipsa memoria blessed-IND.PST.3SG there is-IND.PRS.3SG and over that-ABL.SG monument-ABL.SG ecclesia fabricata est. church-NOM.SG built-PART.NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG ‘The monument of Sanct Helisaeus, where he blessed that/the fountain, is there, and over that/the monument a church has been built.’ • Modern Bulgarian postposed definite article < Slavic demonstrative *to- (e.g. градъ-т gradă-t ‘the city’, книга-та kniga-ta ‘the book’) (70) Old Church Slavic: Jn. 18, 10 Sav. Бѣ же имѧ рабоу томоу Мельхъ. Bě že imę rabou tomoy Melьxъ. was-IND.IMPERF.3SG PCLE name-NOM.SG slave-DAT.SG that-DAT.SG Malkhos-NOM.SG ‘The servant’s name was Malchus.’ (= Greek ἦν δὲ ὄνομα τῷ δούλῳ Μάλχος) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 9

(71) Old Church Slavic: Jn. 14, 11 Zogr. За та дѣла вѣрѫ емлѣте ми. Za ta děla věrǫ eml’ěte mi. for these-ACC.PL deeds-ACC.SG faith-ACC.SG take-IMPER.PRS.2PL to me-DAT.SG ‘Believe me for the very works’ sake.’ (= Greek διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετε)

4. External Comparison 4.1. Cross-linguistic Comparability • William Croft (1990:11): ‘The fundamental prerequisite for cross-linguistic comparison is cross-linguistic comparability, that is the ability to identify the ‘same’ grammatical phenomenon across languages’. 4.2. Infinitives • Terminology: Latin infinitivus, Greek ἀπέμφατος apémphatos ‘the incongruous mood’ (72) Latin: Plautus, Bacchides, 631 Militis parasitus modo uenerat aurum petere hinc. captain-GEN.SG parasite-NOM.SG just came-IND.PLUPERF.3SG gold-ACC.SG fetch-INF hence ‘The captain’s parasite came here right now to fetch the gold hence.’ (73) Latin: Horace, Odes I, 29, 9 doctus sagittas tendere Sericas ‘skilled to bend the Serian bow’ skilled-NOM.SG bows-ACC.PL bend-INF Serian-ACC.PL (74) Latin: Plautus, Trinummus, 5 Operam dare promittitis. ‘You promised to give attention.’ attention-ACC.SG give-INF promised-IND.PRS.2PL (75) Latin: Plautus, Mercator, 577 Scio pol te amare. ‘I know that you are in love.’ I know-IND.PRS.1SG PCLE you-ACC.SG be in love-INF (76) Hittite: ABoT 60 rev. 3-4, VBoT 2: 10-12 (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008:337) Liliwaḫ ḫ uwanzi nai. ‘Send quickly!’ hurry-INF send-IMPER.ACT.2SG (77) Old English: Beowulf, 702-703 Cōm on wanre niht / scrīðan sceadugenga. came-IND.PST.3SG in dark-DAT.SG night-DAT.SG to glide-INF shadow-stalker-NOM.SG ‘Out of the dark night came the shadow-stalker swiftly’. (78) Old Lithuanian: Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia (1579-1590: Ex. 12, 33) Mumus wissiems mirti. ‘We all have to die.’ to us-DAT.PL all-DAT.PL to die-INF (79) Modern Lithuanian Jaũ bõkštas matýti. already tower-NOM.SG to see-INF ‘We can already see a tower.’ (lit. ‘a tower is already to see.’)

(80) Vedic Sanskrit: RV II 112 Táva spārhé várnạ ā́ saṃdr̥ ́sị śríyah.̣ of you-GEN.SG delightful-LOC.SG colour-LOC.SG in to see-INF splendors-NOM.PL ‘In your delightful colour are the splendors visible.’ (‘are to see’ < lit. ‘in seeing’) 4.3. New Terminological Labels: ‘Evidentials’ • Joan Bybee (1985:184): evidentials ‘indicate something about the source of the information in the proposition’ • Franz Boas (1947): Kwakiutl, an Amerindian language spoken in British Columbia (Canada) • Roman Jakobson (1957) 10 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(81) Bulgarian (cf. Smirnova 2013:479 sq.) Мариа написала книга. ‘Maria wrote a book (I heard).’ Maria napisala kniga. Maria having written-PART.PERF book (82) Bulgarian (cf. Smirnova 2013:479 sq.) Мариа написа книга. ‘Maria wrote a book.’ Maria napisa kniga. Maria wrote-IND.AOR.3SG book (83) Albanian (cf. Buchholz & Fiedler 1987:154) E, unë paskam miq ! ‘Eh, I have friends!’ eh I-NOM.SG have-ADMIR.PRS.1SG friends-ACC.PL • Cf. Victor Friedman (1982, 1986) • Distinction between evidentiality (referring to the source of the information) and epistemic modality (referring to its subjective validation). Cf. Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova (2010:6): ‘While evidentiality indicates the source of evidence a speaker has for making a statement, without necessarily accompanying that with a factuality judgment, epistemic modality is concerned exactly and exclusively with the latter, i.e. with the degree of factuality a speaker attributes to a proposition’. (84) English John was allegedly singing. John was-IND.PST.3SG allegedly-ADV singing • Pro: Aikhenvald (2003:19); contra: Boye (2010:291). 4.4. Goals of the Comparison Universal patterns of language (typological comparison); reconstruction of common prototypes (genetic comparison); patterns shared by neighbouring languages (areal comparison). 4.5. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages (85) Albanian Agimi e pa Sokolin. Agim-NOM.SG=DEF.ART him-ACC.SG saw-IND.AOR.3SG Sokol-ACC.SG=DEF.ART ‘Agim saw Sokol.’ (lit. ‘Agim saw him Sokol.’) (86) Bulgarian Иван го виждам. ‘I see Ivan.’ (‘I see him Ivan.’) Iván go víždam. Ivan him-OBJ.SG I see-IND.PRS.1SG (87) Romanian L-am văzut pe Popescu. him-OBJ=have-IND.PRS.1SG seen-PART OBJ.MARK. Popescu ‘I have seen Popescu.’ (‘I have seen him Popescu.’) (88) Modern Greek Τον συνάντησα τον αδερφό της προχθές. Ton sinántisa ton aδerfó tis proχθés. him-ACC.SG I met-IND.AOR.1SG the-ACC.SG brother-ACC.SG of her-GEN.SG the day before yesterday-ADV ‘I met her brother the day before yesterday.’ (lit. ‘I met him her brother the day before yesterday.’) First approach: Kayne (1975) = right-dislocation (89) French Je le vois, Jean. ‘I see Jean.’ I him-OBJ see-IND.PRS.1SG Jean (90) Spanish Juan lo leyó el libro. ‘Juan read the book.’ Juan it-OBJ read-IND.PST.3SG the book Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 11

Second approach: Romance development (91) Latin: Cicero, De Oratore 2, 160 Et illum legi librum ‘And I have read this book’ And that-ACC.SG I read-IND.PERF.1SG book-ACC.SG Third approach: Balkan feature • Franz Miklosich (1862:7-8).

5. External Reconstruction 5.1. Vocative Case and Plurality (92) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey γ 43 = vocative singular Εὔχεο νῦν, ὦ ξεῖνε. ‘Offer a prayer, o stranger!’ Eúkheo nū̃n, ō̃ kseĩne. pray-IMPER.PRS.MED.2SG now PCLE stranger-VOC.SG (93) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey ι 252 = nominative plural in vocative function Ὦ ξεῖνοι, τίνες ἐστέ ; ‘O strangers, who are you?’ Ō̃ kseĩnoi, tínes esté? PCLE strangers-NOM.PL who-NOM.PL are you-IND.PRS.2PL

(94) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 1149 = vocative singular Rā́ svā pitar marutāṃ sumnám asmé. give-IMP.AOR.2SG father-VOC.SG of the Maruts-GEN.PL favour-ACC.SG to us-DAT.PL ‘Give us your favour, o father of the Maruts!’

(95) Vedic Sanskrit: RV X 15, 62 = nominative plural in vocative function Mā́ hiṃsisṭ ạ , pitarah.̣ ‘Do not injure us, o fathers!’ NEG injure-INJ.AOR.2PL fathers-NOM.PL (96) Old Irish: Tail Bo Cuailnge, 2456, cf. O’Rahilly (1970:67) = nominative plural Atrubratar fir Hérend. ‘The men of Erin discussed.’ discussed-IND.PST.3PL men-NOM.PL of Erin-GEN.SG (97) Old Irish: Tail Bo Cuailnge, 3791, cf. O’Rahilly (1970:105) = vocative plural Maith a firu̇ Hérend! ‘O men of Erin!’ well-ADV PCLE men-VOC.PL of Erin-GEN.SG (98) Romanian (cf. Hill 2014:188) Fetelor! le-a spus fetelor. girls-VOC.PL them-GEN.DAT.PL=has.IND.PRS.3SG said-PART.NOM.SG girls-GEN-DAT.PL ‘“Girls!”, he said to the girls.’ (99) Romanian (cf. Hill 2014:188) Vă spun vouă, fraţilor. you-GEN-DAT.PL I tell.IND.PRS.1SG to you-GEN-DAT.PL brothers-GEN-DAT.PL ‘I tell you, [you being] my brothers.’

The [VOC+NOM] pattern (100) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 2, 5 Vā́ yav Índraś ca cetathah.̣ ‘O Vāyu and Indra, you know!’ Vāyu-VOC.SG Indra-NOM.SG =and you know-IND.PRS.2PL (101) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Γ 276-277 Ζεῦ πάτερ Ἴδηθεν μεδέων, κύδιστε, μέγιστε Zeũ páter Ídēthen medéōn, kū́ diste, mégiste Zeus-VOC.SG father-VOC.SG from the Ida-ABL.SG leader-NOM.SG most glorious-VOC.SG biggest-VOC.SG Ἠέλιός θ’ ὃς πάντ’ ἐφορᾷς Ēéliós th’ hòs pánt’ ephorā̃is Sun-NOM.SG =and who-NOM.SG everything-ACC.SG sees-IND.PRS.3SG καὶ πάντ’ ἐπακούεις kaì pánt’ epakoúeis. and everything-ACC.SG hears-IND.PRS.3SG ‘Father Zeus, who rules from the Ida, the most glorious, the biggest, and thou Sun, who sees everything, who hears everything!’ 12 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

The [NOM+VOC] pattern (102) Vedic Sanskrit: RV IV 50, 10 (with ‘inverted ca’) Índraś ca sómaṃ pibataṃ Br̥ haspate. Indra-NOM.SG =and soma-ACC.SG drink-IMPER.PRES.2DU Br̥ haspati-VOC.SG ‘Indra and Br̥ haspati, drink the soma!’ (103) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey τ 406 (cf. Platt 1909:105) Γαμβρὸς ἐμὸς θύγατέρ τε, Gambròs emòs thúgatér te, son-in-law-NOM.SG my-NOM.SG daughter-VOC.SG =and τίθεσθ’ ὄνομ’ ὅττι κεν εἴπω. títhesth’ ónom’ hótti ken eípō. put-IMPER.PRS.2PL name-ACC.SG whatever-ACC.SG PCLE I say-SUBJ.AOR.1SG ‘My son-in-law and my daughter! give him whatsoever name I say.’

The [VOC+VOC] pattern (104) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 185, 11 (cf. also V 46, 2 and V 71, 3) Idáṃ dyāvāpr̥ thivī satyám astu now Earth-Heaven-NOM.DU true-NOM.SG be-IMPER.PRES.3SG pítar mā́ tar yád ihópabruvé vām. father-VOC.SG mother-VOC.SG when now-I address-IND.PRES.1SG you-ACC.SG ‘Be this true, o Earth and Heaven, when, Father and Mother, I address you.’ (105) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Ζ 77 (cf. Platt 1909:106) Αἰνεία τε καὶ Ἕκτορ ‘Aeneas and Hector!’ Aineía te kaì Héktor Aeneas-VOC.SG =and Hector-VOC.SG (106) Old Avestan: Yasna 46, 18 Mazdā Ašā ‘O Mazda [and] Aša!’ Mazda-VOC.SG Aša-VOC.SG (107) Old Avestan: Yasna 28, 7 Mazdā Xšaiiā-cā ‘O Mazda [and] king!’ Mazda-VOC.SG King-VOC.SG=and (108) Romanian Doamnelor şi domnilor! ‘Ladies and gentlemen!’ ladies-VOC.PL and gentlemen-VOC.PL • Jan Gonda (1975:91 [1956]): particle ca (Ved.), τε te (Gr.) ‘and’ < PIE particle *ku̯ e, ‘indicating complementary unity’. 5.2. Verb-initial Sentences in Indo-European (VSO or VOS) (109) Vedic Sanskrit: RV V 54, 2 (cf. Viti 2008:89) Vā́ sati tritáh ̣ sváranty ā́ pah.̣ roars out-IND.PRS.3SG Trita-NOM.SG thunder-IND.PRS.3PL waters-NOM.PL ‘Trita roars out. The waters thunder.’ (110) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 35, 3 (cf. Viti 2008:89) Yā́ ti deváh ̣ pravátā, yā́ ti udvátā. goes-IND.PRS.3SG god-NOM.SG by the downward path goes-IND.PRS.3SG by the upward path ‘The god goes by the downward path, he goes by the upward path.’ (111) Young Avestan: Yašt 10, 2 Mǝrǝnc̣ aite vīspam daiŋhaom mairiiō Miθrō.druxś. destroys-IND.PRS.MED.3.SG all-ACC.SG region-ACC.SG false-NOM.SG deceiver of Mithra-NOM.SG ‘He destroys the whole region the false deceiver of Mithra.’ (112) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Φ 387 Βράχε δ’ εὐρεῖα χθών. ‘The broad earth thundered.’ Brákhe d’ eureĩa khthṓ n. thundered-IND.AOR.3SG PCLE broad-NOM.SG earth-NOM.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 13

(113) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Ρ 689 Πέφαται δ’ ὥριστος Ἀχαιῶν // Πάτροκλος. Péphatai d’ hṓristos Akhaiō̃n // Pátroklos. died-IND.PERF.3SG PCLE the=best-NOM.SG Achaeans-GEN.PL Patroklos-NOM.SG ‘He is dead the best of the Achaeans, Patroclos.’ (114) Latin: Cicero, Tusculanes 1, 108 (cf. Spevak 2010:44) Condiunt Aegyptii mortuos et eos servant domi. embalm-IND.PRS.3PL Egyptians-NOM.PL deads-ACC.PL and them-ACC.PL keep-IND.PRS.3PL home ‘Egyptians embalm the deads and keep them at home.’ (115) Latin: Caeasar, De Bello Gallico 1, 9 (cf. Luraghi 1995:369) Relinquebatur una per Sequanos uia. remained-IND. IMPERF.PASS.3SG one-NOM.SG through Sequani-ACC.PL way-NOM.SG ‘There remained only one other line of route, through the borders of the Sequani.’ (116) Classical Armenian: Movsēs Xorenac’i, History of Armenia, I, 31 (‘The Birth of Vahagn’) Երկնէր երկին, երկնէր երկինր ր. Erknēr erkin, erknēr erkir. was in labour-IND.IMPERF.3SG sky-NOM.SG was in labour-IND.IMPERF.3SG earth-NOM.SG ‘The sky was in labour, the earth was in labour.’ (see Tolegian 1979:32-33) (117) Tocharian A: I, 2 (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960:II17, Pinault 2008:467) Nämseñc yäslus ̣ tsrasị sac, bow down-IND.PRS.3PL enemies-NOM.PL powerful-ALL.PL kumseñc yärkant tsrasị sac. come-IND.PRS.3PL homages-NOM.PL powerful-ALL.PL ‘Enemies bow down before the powerfuls, homages come to the powerfuls.’ (118) Old High German: Monsee Fragment, 20, 8 (cf. Lenerz 1985:104) See, quimit ther brutigomo. ‘Look, there comes the bridegroom!’ look comes-IND.PRS.3SG the-NOM.SG bridegroom-NOM.SG (119) Old English: Beowulf, 1888 Cwōm þā tō flōde fela mōdriga. came-IND.PST.3SG then to wave-DAT.SG much-NOM.SG braves-GEN.PL ‘Then came to the waves many brave men’.

(120) Lithuanian: Ludwig Rhesa, Dainos oder Litthauische Volkslieder (1825: 481-2) Téka Uppuʒ̇ elij’ / Cʒyʃtas Wandenélis. flows-IND.PRS.3 river-LOC.SG pure-NOM.SG water-NOM.SG ‘Pure water is flowing in the river.’ (121) Hittite: KUB XVII 10 II 35 (cf. Holland 1980:45) Auš-ta-an DKammarušepaš. ‘And Kammarušepaš saw him.’ saw-IND.PST.3SG=PCLE=him.ACC.SG Kammarušepaš-NOM.SG (122) Hittite: KUB XXXIII 122 ii 1.1. (cf. Holland 1980:41, Luraghi 1995:358) Uu̯ atten, ḫ alziššai-u̯ a-tta DINGIRMEŠ-aš attaš DKumarbiš. come-IMPER.2PL calls-IND.PRS.3SG=PCLE=you.ACC.SG gods-GEN.PL father-NOM.SG Kumarbiš-NOM.SG ‘Come, Kumarbis, the father of the gods, is calling you’ (123) Hittite: KBo VI 29 II 25-26 (cf. Holland 1980:38-39) Úitma LÚKÚR URUPIŠḪURUŠ anda araš. came-IND.PST.3SG enemy Pišḫ uruš PCLE attacked-IND.PST.3SG ‘And he came the enemy of Pishurus attacked’ • Wilhelm Kroll (1909:114, 116): ‘progress of the action’ (den Fortschritt der Handlung) or ‘description’ of a state (Schilderung). Cf. also Wolfgang Dressler (1969). (124) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey λ 84 Ἦλθε δ’ ἔπι ψυχὴ μητρὸς κατατεθνηκυίης. Ḗ lthe d’ épi psukhḕ mētròs katatethnēkuíēs. came-IND. AOR.3SG PCLE POSTV soul-NOM.SG mother-GEN.SG dead-GEN.SG ‘Then came the soul of my dead mother.’ • Carlotta Viti (2008): ‘thetic’ function (cf. there is a cat in the room), in contrast to ‘categorical’ (cf. a cat is sleeping in the room) 14 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(125) Classical Sanskrit: Mahābhārata II, 53, 1 Āsīd rājā Nalo nāma. ‘There was a king named Nalas.’ was-IND.IMPERF.3SG king-NOM.SG Nalas-NOM.SG name-NOM-ACC.SG (126) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad Ζ 152 (cf. Kahn 1973:239) Ἔστι πόλις Ἐφύρη μυχῷ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο. Ésti pólis Ephúrē mukhō̃i Árgeos hippobótoio. is-IND.PRS.3SG city-NOM.SG Ephyre-NOM.SG corner-DAT.SG Argos-GEN.SG horse-pasturing-GEN.SG ‘There is a city, Ephyre, in the corner of horse-pasturing Argos.’ (127) Latin: Cicero, Verres, 1, 6, 4 (cf. Spevak 2010:41) Erat comes eius Rubrius quidam. was-IND.IMPERF.3SG fellow-NOM.SG of him-GEN.SG Rubrius-NOM.SG some-NOM.SG ‘There was a fellow of him, a certain Rubrius.’

6. External description? 6.1. Comparison of Superiority in PIE John is taller than Jack target of gradable comparative standard standard of comparison predicate morpheme marker comparison • Thomas Stolz (2013:9):

• COMPAREE: ‘the participant in a situation of comparison whose share of the QUALITY is measured against the STANDARD’

• STANDARD: ‘the participant in a situation of comparison which serves as yardstick for the measurement of the QUALITY with the COMPAREE’

• QUALITY: ‘the property in which COMPAREE and STANDARD partake’

• DEGREE: ‘the (in)difference of the shares COMPAREE and STANDARD have of the QUALITY’

• TIE: ‘the relation that connects the STANDARD to COMPAREE and QUALITY’. (128) Hindi (cf. Kachru 2006:66) Yǝh mǝkan tumhare mǝkan se choʈa hε. this house-MASC.SG your house-MASC.SG =than small-MASC.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG ‘This house is smaller than your house.’ (129) Hittite: KUB XXXI 42 II 18 (cf. Andersen 1983:113) Anzel TI-anni UL SA BELU.NI TI-tar nakki. of us-GEN.PL life-DAT.-LOC.SG NEG GEN lord our life-NOM.SG important-NOM.SG ‘The life of our lord is not more important than our life.’ (130) Classical Armenian: Ps. 18, 11 Քաղցր է քան զմեղր. ‘He is sweeter than honey.’ K‛ałc‛r ē k‛an z-mełr. sweet-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG than PREP=honey-ACC.SG (131) Tocharian B: B 496, 1 (cf. Krause & Thomas 1960:I 86, Pinault 2008:20 and 64, see Thomas 1958) Mā ñi cisa nos ̣ śomo ñem wnolme NEG to me-DAT.SG than you-PERL.SG before human-NOM.SG name-NOM.SG creature-NOM.SG lāre tāka. dear-NOM.SG was-IND.PST.3SG ‘No creature with a human name was dearer to me than you before.’ • Synthetic comparatives of superiority: Lat. doctus ‘learned’, compar. doctior ‘more learned’ vs. analytic: Ital. dotto ‘learned’, compar. più dotto ‘more learned’. PIE suffixes *-i̯ e/os- and *-tero-. 6.2. The Standard of Comparison in PIE • Andersen (1983:112-113):

• JUXTAPOSITION: (A is) bigger, B (is) not (big) / is small • CASE: (A is) bigg(er) B-from

• PRE-/POSTPOSITION: (A is) bigg(er) from B • PARTICLE: (A is) bigger than B Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 15

6.3. From-comparative (ablative)

(132) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VIII 2420 ghr̥ tā́ t svā́ diyah ̣ ‘sweeter than butter’ butter-ABL.SG sweeter-NOM.SG (133) Young Avestan: Hāδōxt 2, 7 (vātō) hubaoiδiš hubaoiδitarō aniiaēibiiō vātaēibiiō (wind) fragrant-NOM.SG more fragrant-NOM.SG other-ABL.PL winds-ABL.PL ‘(wind) fragrant, more fragrant than the other winds’ (134) Latin: Plautus, Rudens, 675 melius morte ‘better than death’ better-NOM.-ACC.NEUT.SG death-ABL.SG Genitive < ablative (135) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Α 249 μέλιτος γλυκίων ῥέεν αὐδή. mélitos glukíōn rhéen audḗ. than honey-GEN.SG sweeter-NOM.SG flowed-IND.IMPERF.3SG voice-NOM.SG ‘His voice was flowing sweeter than honey.’ (136) Old Church Slavic: Jn. 1, 50 Больша сихъ оузьриши. Bolьša sixъ uzьriši. greater-ACC.NEUT.PL these-GEN.PL you will see-IND.PRS.PERF.2SG ‘You will see greater things than these.’ (= Greek μείζω τούτων ὄψῃ) (137) Russian Я старше своей сестры. ‘I am older than my sister.’ Ja starše svoeï sestry. I-NOM.SG older-NOM.SG his own-GEN.SG sister-GEN.SG

(138) Tocharian A: A 30, a1 Vipul sụ läs ̣ lyutār tpär ‘higher than the Vipula mountain’ Vipula-OBL.SG mountain-ABL.SG more high-NOM.SG (139) Hindi Mohan se barạ̄ ‘bigger than Mohan’ Mohan =from big (140) Ossetic (cf. Abaev 1964:19) дæуæй хуыздæр ‘better than you’ dæuæï xuyzdær you-ABL.SG better From-adpositions (141) Sogdian (cf. Gerschevitch 1954:195) cn škr’ n’mrtr ‘sweeter than sugar’ from sugar sweeter (142) Modern Persian (cf. Lazard 1992:86) In ketâb az ân qadimatar-ast. ‘This book is older than that one.’ this book from that older=is-IND.PRS.3SG (143) Modern Greek (cf. Holton, Mackridge, Philippaki-Warburton 1997:471) Ο Γίαννης είναι εξυπνότερος από την Ελένη. O Γíanis íne eksipnóteros apó tin Eléni. the-NOM.SG John-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG cleverer-NOM.SG from the-ACC.SG Helen-ACC.SG ‘John is cleverer than Helen.’ (144) Albanian (cf. Ressuli 1985:593) Hekuri është më i dobishëm nga ari. iron-NOM.SG=DEF.ART is-IND.PRS.3SG more useful from gold-NOM.SG=DEF.ART ‘Iron is more useful than gold.’ 16 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(145) Welsh (cf. King 1993:76) Mae aur yn fwy gwerthfawr nag arian. is-IND.PRS.3SG gold-SG in more valuable-SG than silver-SG ‘Gold is more valuable than silver.’ (nag ‘than’ < *-n og < *ud-g̑ hos ‘out, from’) (146) Slovenian (cf. Svane 1958:125) Vêč̣ ji je od méne. ‘He is taller than me.’ taller-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG from me-GEN.SG (147) Serbo-Croatian (cf. Ronelle 2006:125) Gòran je srètniji od tebe. ‘Goran is happier than you.’ Goran-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG happier-NOM.SG from you-GEN.SG (148) Bulgarian (cf. Scatton 1983:145) Той е поумен от мене. ‘He is more intelligent than me.’ Toj e poumen ot mene. he-SG is-IND.PRS.3SG more intelligent-SG from me-OBL.SG (149) Polish Jestem większy od ciebie. ‘I am taller than you.’ I am-IND.PRS.1SG taller-NOM.SG from you-GEN.SG

(150) Italian (cf. Napoli & Nespor 1986:622) Dario è ancora più furbo di Tommaso. Dario-SG is-IND.PRS.3SG still more shrewd-SG from Tommaso-SG ‘Dario is even shrewder than Tommaso.’ 6.4. For-comparative (dative) (151) Hittite: KUB XXXI 42 II 18 (cf. Andersen 1983:113) Anzel TI-anni UL SA BELU.NI TI-tar nakki. of us-GEN.PL life-DAT.-LOC.SG NEG GEN lord our life-NOM.SG important-NOM.SG ‘The life of our lord is not more important than our life.’ (152) Hieroglyphic Luwian: TELL AHMAR 1 § 16 (cf. Yakubovich 2013:160) Apašaza[-pa]-u̯ a/i-mu FRATER.LA-za MAGNUS+ra/izana izità his-POSS.DAT.PL.=but=PCLE=me-ACC.SG brothers-DAT.PL great-ACC.SG he made-IND.PST.3SG ‘He made me greater than his own brothers.’ (153) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, Lk. 16, 8 forodozans sunum liuhadis cleverer-ACC.PL sons-DAT.PL light-GEN.SG ‘cleverer than the sons of light’ (= Greek φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτός) (154) Old Icelandic: Edda, Hávamál, 51 Eldi heitari brennr með illom vinom fire-DAT.SG fiercer-NOM.SG burns-IND.PRS.3SG among bad-DAT.PL friends-DAT.PL Friðr fimm daga. love-NOM.SG five days-ACC.PL ‘Fiercer than fire, Love burns five days among bad friends.’ (155) Modern Icelandic (residual construction, cf. Breivik 1994:55) Hún var öllum fegri. ‘She was prettier than all (the others).’ she-NOM.SG was-IND.PST.3SG all-DAT.PL prettier-NOM.SG (156) Old High German: Otfrid, Evangelienbuch, 3, 18, 33 (cf. Schrodt 2004:38) Bistú nu zi wáre furira Ábrahame? are you-IND.PRS.2SG=thou-NOM.SG really older-NOM.SG Abraham-DAT.SG ‘Are you really older than Abraham?’ (157) Old English: Bede, Ecclesiastical History, I, 9, 46 (text and translation from Miller 1890:46-47) Wæs þis gefeoht wælgrimre & strengre was-IND.PST.3SG this contest-NOM.SG more bloody-NOM.SG and more violent-NOM.SG eallum þam ærgedonum. ‘This contest was more bloody and violent than any before’. all-DAT.PL the-DAT.PL former-DAT.PL Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 17

(158) Old Irish: Scéla Mucci Mic Dathó 3, 11 Bid lia turim a chath. will be-IND.FUT.3SG more counting-DAT.SG his-POSS fight-NOM.SG ‘The fight for him will be more than a count (more than can be counted).’ (159) Modern Sinhalese (cf. Gair 2003:803) Mee potǝ ee potǝtǝ̣ wædị ye hon̆ dayi. this book-DIR.SG that book-DAT.SG more good-ASSIM ‘This book is better than that book.’ (160) Modern Breton (cf. Stassen 1985:142, Stolz 2013:81) Jazo brasoc’h widon. ‘He is bigger than I.’ he-NOM.SG bigger-NOM.SG for=me-SG (161) Lithuanian (cf. Žindžiutė-Michelini 2007:149) Jis už tėvą aukštesnis. ‘He is taller than his father.’ he-NOM.SG for, instead of father-ACC.SG taller-NOM.SG (162) Latvian (cf. Forssman 2001:272) Es esmu vecāks par tevi. ‘I am older than you.’ I-NOM.SG am-IND.PRS.1SG older-NOM.SG for you-ACC.SG 6.5. Variations (163) Hittite: KUB XLIII 53 I 22 Kapru-ššet-ašta kapruaz GAL-li. ‘His throat is bigger than a throat.’ throat-NOM.SG=his.POSS.=PCLE throat-ABL.SG big-NOM.SG (164) Hittite: KUB XLIII 53 I 23 Iški(š)-šet-ašta iškisi GAL-li. ‘His back is bigger than a back.’ back-NOM.SG=his.POSS.=PCLE back-DAT-LOC.SG big-NOM.SG 6.6. Particles or Conjunctions and Comparison of Equality (165) Latin: Plautus, Menaechmi, 488 (cf. Bauer 1995:155) homo leuior quam pluma ‘a man lighter than a feather’ man-NOM.SG lighter-NOM.SG as feather-NOM.SG (166) Latin: Plautus, Bacchides, 767 (cf. Bennett 1910:115) Tam frictum illum reddam ‘I will give him back as parched as a pea is parched.’ as parched-ACC.SG him-ACC.SG I will give back-IND.FUT.1SG quam frictum est cicer. as parched-ACC.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG pea-NOM.SG

u̯ u̯ • Latin quam < PIE *k ām < *k eh2m (167) Classical Armenian: Lk. 11, 22 հզաւրագոյն քան զնա ‘stronger than he’ hzawragoyn kʻan z-na strong-NOM.SG than OBJ=him-ACC.SG (168) Lithuanian (cf. Žindžiutė-Michelini 2007:56) Jis gudresnis kaip tu. ‘He is cleverer than you.’ he-NOM.SG cleverer-NOM.SG as, like you-NOM.SG

(169) Old Prussian: Third Catechism, Enchiridion, 1158-9 (1561) ſteimans malnijkikamans ni maſſais kai ſtēimans vremmans the-DAT.PL children-DAT.PL NEG less as, like the-DAT.PL old men-DAT.PL ‘to the little children not less than to the old men’ (= German den Kindlein nicht weniger / denn den Alten) 18 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(170) Modern German (see also Eggs 2006) Er ist größer als ich. he-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG taller than I-NOM.SG ‘He is taller than I.’ (als < Middle German al sō ‘all like’) (171) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Λ 162 γύπεσσιν πολὺ φίλτεροι ἢ ἀλόχοισιν ‘far dearer to the vultures than to their wives’ gúpessin polù phílteroi ḕ alókhoisin vultures-DAT.PL much dearer-NOM.PL or wifes-DAT.PL (172) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, 2Tim. 3, 4 frijondans wiljan seinana mais þau guþ loving-ACC.PL pleasure-ACC.SG their-ACC.SG more or God-ACC.SG ‘loving their pleasure more than God’ (= Greek φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι) (173) Old High German: Notker, Liber de Martianus Capella, I, 43, 11 Tér uuás rîchero dánne der brûoder he-NOM.SG was-IND.PST.3SG richer-NOM.SG then the-NOM.SG brother-NOM.SG únde geschíster. and sister-NOM.SG ‘He was richer than his brother and sister.’ (174) Old Saxon: Heliand, 941 So mikilu is he betara than ic. ‘He is much better than I.’ so much is-IND.PRS.3SG he-NOM.SG better-NOM.SG then I-NOM.SG (175) Classical Sanskrit (cf. Andersen 1983:226, see also Small 1923:101) Śreyān mr̥ tyur na nirjayah.̣ better-NOM.SG death-NOM.SG NEG defeat-NOM.SG ‘Death is better than defeat.’ (< ‘death is better, not defeat’) (176) Old Church Slavic: Mt. 11, 22 Zogr. Туроу и Сидоноу отърадьнѣе бѫдетъ Turou i Sidonou otъradьněe bǫdetъ Tyre-DAT.SG and Sidon-DAT.SG more bearable-NOM.SG it will be-IND.FUT.3SG въ дьнь сѫдъны неже вама. vь dьnь sǫdъny neže vama. in day-ACC.SG judgment-GEN.SG NEG=PCLE both of you-DAT.DU ‘It will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.’ (= Greek Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ ὑμῖν) (177) Serbo-Croatian (cf. Ronelle 2006:180) Òna je ljepša nego ti. ‘She is prettier than you.’ she-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG prettier-NOM.SG NEG=PCLE you-NOM.SG (178) Czech Karel je větší než Věra. ‘Karel is tallier than Vera.’ Karel-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG taller-NOM.SG NEG=PCLE Vera-NOM.SG (179) Polish Jestem większy niż ty. ‘I am taller than you.’ I am-IND.PRS.1SG taller-NOM.SG NEG=PCLE you-NOM.SG (180) Modern Lithuanian (cf. Žindžiutė-Michelini 2007:56) Ąžuolas aukštesnis negu beržas. ‘The oak is higher than the birch.’ oak-NOM.SG higher-NOM.SG NEG=PCLE birch-NOM.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 19

(181) Modern Latvian Es esmu vecāks nekā tu. ‘I am older than you.’ I-NOM.SG am-IND.PRS.1SG older-NOM.SG NEG=like-PCLE you-NOM.SG 6.7. Disjunctive Comparison (182) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Β 453 (cf. Chantraine 1953:152) Τοῖσι δ’ ἄφαρ πόλεμος γλυκίων γένετ’ Toĩsi d’ áphar pólemos glukíōn génet’ to them-DAT.PL. PCLE soon battle-NOM.SG sweeter-NOM.SG became-IND.AOR.3SG ἠὲ νέεσθαι. ēè néesthai. than to come back-INF ‘To them the battle soon became sweeter than to return.’ • Benveniste (1948:115-143): genitive (< ablative) = dimensional meaning (sens dimensionnel) vs. disjunctive particle ἤ ḗ = differential value (valeur différentielle)

COMPARATIVE FORMATION CONSTRUCTION SEMANTIC INTERPRETATION intensive *-i̯ e/os- + genitive (< ablative) ‘quite X judging from Y’ contrastive *-tero- + ἤ ḗ ‘or’ ‘relatively X in contrast to Y’ 6.8. Summary • 1. Ablative: a. Old Indo-Aryan (Vedic Sanskrit, Avestan), Latin; b. (> genitive) Ancient Greek, Slavic; c. (> rebuilt ablatives or from-constructions) Tocharian A, Hindi, Sogdian, Ossetic, Persian, Modern Greek, Albanian, Welsh, Modern Slavic, Italian. • 2. Dative: a. Anatolian, Germanic (Gothic, Old and Modern Icelandic, Old High German, Old English), Old Irish; b. (with adpositions) Modern Sinhalese, Modern Breton, Baltic.

u̯ u̯ • 3. PIE *k ām (< *k eh2m): a. Latin (> Romance), Armenian. • 4. Comparison (‘like’): a. Lithuanian (kaip), Old Prussian (kai); German (als); Russian (чем čem). • 5. Negation: a. Sanskrit, Slavic, Baltic. 6.9. Internal Variations • Ablative vs. Dative: (perhaps) Hittite. • Ablative vs. Negation: Sanskrit; (> Genitive, vs. Negation) Slavic. • Ablative vs. PIE *ku̯ ām: Latin; (from-comparative, vs. *que < Latin quam) Spanish, French, Italian. • Ablative vs. Disjunction: (> Genitive, vs. Disjunction) Ancient Greek. • Dative vs. Comparison: (> Preposition, vs. Comparison) possibly East Baltic. • Dative vs. Preposition: Old Irish. • Dative vs. Disjunction: Gothic. • Dative vs. Temporal particle: Old High German, Old English. • Comparison vs. Negation: East Baltic. 6.10. Superiority vs. Equality (183) Lithuanian (cf. Žindžiutė-Michelini 2007:56) Jis gudresnis kaip tu. ‘He is cleverer than you.’ he-NOM.SG cleverer-NOM.SG as, like you-NOM.SG (184) Lithuanian Jis taip gudrus kaip tu. ‘He is as clever as you.’ he-NOM.SG as clever-NOM.SG as, like you-NOM.SG 20 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(185) Old Lithuanian: Jacob Brodowski, Lexikon Germanico-Lithuanicum et Lithuanico-Germanicum I 153 [1713-1744] Ketures Akkis daugiaus máta ne wiena. ‘Four eyes see more than one.’ four-NOM.PL eyes-NOM.PL more-ADV see-IND.PRS.3 NEG one-NOM.SG (186) Old Lithuanian: Jacob Brodowski, Lexikon Germanico-Lithuanicum et Lithuanico-Germanicum I 151 [1713-1744] Auga waikai ne Girroj’ Médʒei. grow-IND.PRS.3 children-NOM.PL NEG forest-LOC.SG trees-LOC.SG ‘Children grow up like trees in the forest.’ • Cf. Hittite takk- ‘to be like, to resemble’; Gothic galeiks ‘similar to’ + dat. • Hermann Ziemmer (1884): standard of comparison = ablative.

7. Conclusion on the comparative method • Robert J. Jeffers (1976:5): ‘A straightforward transfer of the principles of the comparative method to the reconstruction of syntax seems totally inappropriate’. • Antony Fox (1995:140): ‘mistake our idealisations for reality’.

B. PRINCIPLES OF SYNTACTIC CHANGE 1. The causation of syntactic change 1.1. Syntactic Change and Simplicity: the Fate of the PIE Supine (1) Latin: Terence, Eunuchus 600 Abeunt lauatum. ‘They go out to wash.’ they go out-IND.PRS.3PL to wash-SUP (2) Latin: Plautus, Mercator 857 Cogito quonam ego illum curram quaeritatum. think-IND.PRS.1SG where I-NOM.SG him-ACC.SG will run-IND.FUT.1SG to look for-SUP ‘I am thinking which way I will run to look for him.’ (3) Old Church Slavic: Lk. 1, 59 Придѧ обрѣзатъ отрочѧте. ‘They came to circumcise the child.’ Pridę obrězatъ otročęte. (= Gr. ἦλθον περιτεμεῖν τὸ παιδίον) they came-IND.AOR.3PL to circumcise-SUP child-GEN.SG (4) Old Church Slavic: Lk. 8, 5 Изиде сѣѩн сѣатъ сѣмене своего . Izide sějęn sějatъ sěmene svoego. went out-IND.AOR.3SG sower-NOM.SG to sow-SUP seed-GEN.SG his-GEN.SG ‘A sower went out to sow his seed.’ (= Gr. ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον αὐτοῦ) (5) Slovenian (cf. Priestly 1993:436) Spât hóḍ im prȅd deséto zvečeṛ . ‘I go to bed before ten at night.’ to sleep-SUP I go-IND.PRS.1SG before ten-ACC.SG at night (6) Slovenian (cf. Arkadiev 2014:72) Šel je gledat novi film. gone-PART.NOM.MASC.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG to see-SUP new-ACC.SG film-ACC.SG ‘He went to watch the new film.’ (7) 16th century Slovenian: Primož Trubar, Ta Celi Novi testament (1582), Lk. 8, 5 En seivec gre vunkai seiati suie seime. one-NOM.SG sower-NOM.SG goes-IND.PRS.3SG out to sow-INF his-ACC.SG seed-GEN.SG ‘A sower went out to sow his seed.’ (8) Lower Sorbian Źom spat. ‘I am going to sleep.’ I go-IND.PRS.1PL to sleep-SUP Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 21

(9) Lower Sorbian (cf. Steenwijk 2003:333) Witśe pojědu Lenky pytat. ‘Tomorrow I will go to look for Lenka.’ tomorrow I will go-IND.FUT.1PL Lenka-ACC.SG to look for-SUP (10) Old Polish: Jakub Wujek, Nowy Teſtament Páná náſʒego Iesusa Christusa (1593, Mt. 28, 1) Prʒyſʒłá Mária Mágdálená y druga Mária came-IND.PST.3SG Maria-NOM.SG Magdalena-NOM.SG and other-NOM.SG Maria-NOM.SG ogla̗ dáć grob. see-INF sepulcher-ACC.SG ‘Maria Madgalena and the other Maria came to see the sepulcher.’ (11) Old Lithuanian: Jonas Bretkūnas, Biblia tatai esti Wissas Schwentas Raschtas (1579-1590, Mt. 13, 3) Ischeijo Seieias setu.̣ ‘A sower went forth to sow.’ went out-IND.PST.3SG sower-NOM.SG to sow-SUP

(12) Old Lithuanian: Martynas Mažvydas, Catechismusa Praſty Szadei (1547:223) Iſch te ateis ſuditu giwu ir numiruſuiu. from there he will come-IND.FUT.3 to judge-SUP living-GEN.PL and the dead-GEN.PL.DET ‘From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.’ (13) Lithuanian (cf. Ambrazas 2006:321) Aš eisiu į kalnelį gelsvų kviečių kirsti. I-NOM.SG will go-IND.FUT.1SG to mountain-ACC.SG yellow-GEN.PL hay-GEN.PL cut-INF ‘I will go to the mountain to cut the yellow hay.’ (14) Dialectal Latvian: Barons, Wissendorff, Latwju dainas 27067 (BW III [1909]), cf. Gāters (1993:347) Uſ krodſin̗ u dſertu gahju. ‘I went to the pub to drink.’ to pub-ACC.SG drink-SUP I went-IND.PST.1SG (15) Latgalian: Svātī Roksti (1933), Lk. 8, 5 Sējēs izgōja sovas sāklas sātu. sower-NOM.SG went out-IND.PST.3 his-GEN.SG seed-GEN.SG to sow-SUP ‘A sower went out to sow his seed.’

(16) Old Prussian: Third Catechism, Enchiridion, 12715 (1561) Stwendau wīrſt pergūbons preilīginton then he will-IND.PRS.3 come-PART.NOM.SG to judge-SUP ſtans geīwans bhe aulauſins. the-ACC.PL living-ACC.PL and dead-ACC.PL ‘Then he will come to judge the living and the dead.’ (= German Von dannen er kommen wirdt zu richten die Lebendigen vnd die Todten)

(17) Old Prussian: Third Catechism, Enchiridion, 1054 (1561) (see Kortlandt 1990) Tu turrī ſen Gulſennien malnijkans gemton. you-NOM.SG have-IND.PRS.2SG with suffering-ACC.SG young-ACC.PL bear-SUP ‘You must bear children with suffering.’ (= German Du ſolt mit ſchmertzen Kinder geberen)

(18) Vedic Sanskrit: RV V 361 Sá ā́ gamad Índro [...] vásūnām [...] dā́ tuṃ. PCLE PCLE come-INJ.PRS.3SG Indra-NOM.SG treasures-GEN.PL give-SUP ‘May Indra come to give forth treasures!’

(19) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 1644 Kó vidvā́ ṅ sam úpa gāt prásṭ ụ m etát? who-NOM.SG wise-ACC.SG towards went-IND.AOR.3SG to ask-SUP that-ACC.SG ‘Who went to the wise to ask this question?’

(20) Pāli: Suttanipāta, Daniya-Sutta, 93 (cf. Mayrhofer 1951:II 8) Munjamāyā navā susanathānā na hi sakkhinti muñja-grass halters-ACC.PL new-ACC.PL well-woven-ACC.PL NEG PCLE will be able-IND.FUT.3PL dhenupāpi chettum. calves-NOM.PL=even to break-INF ‘The new muñja-grass halters, well-woven, not even calves could break them.’ 22 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

Latin ‘secondary supines’ and the Romanian supine (21) Latin: Cato, De Agricultura 5, 5 Primus cubitu surgat, first-NOM.SG from lying down-ABL.SG let him get up-SUBJ.PRS.3SG postremus cubitum eat. last-NOM.SG to lie down-SUP let him go-SUBJ.PRS.3SG ‘Let him get up the first out of bed, let him go to bed the last.’ (22) Old Romanian: Mihail Moxa, Cronica Universală 60v [1620] (cf. Pană-Dindelegan 2016:253) Se duseră la vânat. ‘They went hunting.’ REFL went-IND.PST.3SG at hunt-SUP (23) Romanian (cf. Hill 2013:234) Am terminat de spălat podelele. I have-IND.PRS.1SG finished-PART.NOM.SG from washing-SUP floors-GEN-DAT.PL=DEF.ART ‘I have finished to wash the floors.’ (24) Romanian (cf. Hill 2013:233) Spălat-ul podele-lor m-a obosit. washing-SUP.NOM.SG=DEF.ART floors-GEN-DAT.PL=DEF.ART me-ACC.SG=has-IND.PRS.3SG tired-PART.NOM.SG ‘The washing of floors tired me.’

PIE *-tum PIE *-tum +INTRODUCED BY + GENITIVE VERBS OF MOVEMENT OBJECT Vedic Sanskrit + (-tum) + + (gen.) > – (acc.) Pāli + (-tum) – – (acc.) Latin + (-tum) + – (acc.) Romanian + (-t) – – (acc.) Old Church Slavic + (-тъ) + + Slovenian + (-t) + + (gen.) > – (acc.) > – (inf. in -ti) Lower Sorbian + (-t) + – (acc.) Old Russian + (-tъ) + + (gen.) > – (inf. in -tь) Modern Russian – (inf. in -t’) – – (acc.) Polish – (inf. in -ć) – – Old Lithuanian + (-tų) + + Modern Lithuanian – (inf. in -ti) + + Latgalian + (-tu) + + Latvian – (inf. in -t) – – Old Prussian + (-tun, -ton) – – Origin of the genitive object (25) Old Church Slavic: Jn. 21, 3 Идѫ рыбъ ловитъ. Idǫ rybъ lovitъ. I go-IND.PRS.3SG fishes-GEN.PL to catch-SUP ‘I am going fishing.’ (= Gr. ὑπάγω ἁλιεύειν) 1.2. Elimination of Redundancy: Adjective Agreement in Celtic (26) Celtiberian: AL.R.2.10 (cf. Jordán Cólera 2004:392) VIROS VERAMOS ‘supreme man, leader.’ man-NOM.MASC.SG supreme-NOM.MASC.SG (27) Gaulish: RIG G-203 (Nîmes) ματερβο ναμαυσικαβο ‘to the Mothers of Nimes’ (lit. ‘to the Namausian Mothers’) matrebo namausikabo mothers-DAT.FEM.PL of Namausis-DAT.FEM.PL (28) Old Irish: Würzburg Glosses 24c 2 (ed. Stokes 1887:140) airde serce móre ‘a sign of great love’ sign-NOM.SG love-GEN.NEUT.SG great-GEN.NEUT.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 23

(29) Modern Irish (cf. Mc Cone 2005:128) fear maith fir mhaith fir mhaithe man-NOM.SG good-NOM.SG man-GEN.SG good-GEN.SG man-NOM.PL good-NOM.PL ‘good man’ (nom.sg.) ‘good man’ (gen.sg.) ‘good men’ (nom.pl.) (30) Welsh (cf. Williams 1980:26-31) gŵ r mawr merch fawr gwŷ r mawrion husband-MASC.SG big-MASC.SG girl-FEM.SG big-MASC.SG husbands-MASC.PL big-MASC.PL ‘big husband’ (masc.sg.) ‘big girl’ (fem.sg.) ‘big husbands’ (masc.pl.) (31) Cornish (cf. Jenner 1904:63) tâs mas tassow mas father-MASC.SG good father-MASC.PL good ‘good father’ (masc.sg.) ‘good fathers’ (masc.pl.) (32) Cornish (cf. Jenner 1904:63) mergh vas merhes mas daughter-FEM.SG good-FEM.SG daughter-FEM.PL good-FEM.PL ‘good daughter’ (fem.sg.) ‘good daughters’ (fem.pl.)

Stage I (Old Celtic, Irish): maximal redundancy (Noun marked for case, gender and number + Adjective marked for case, gender and number) Stage II (Welsh): less redundancy (Noun marked for gender and number, unmarked for case + Adjective marked for gender and number, unmarked for case; + increasing invariability) Stage III (Cornish): less redundancy (Noun marked for gender and number, unmarked for case + Adjective unmarked, except for isolated forms) Stage IV (Breton): minimal redundancy (Noun minimally marked for gender and number, unmarked for case + Adjective unmarked) 1.3. Elimination of Redundancy: the ‘Pro-drop’ Phenomenon • Cf. Noam Chomsky (1981), Luigi Rizzi (1986): referential pro, quasi-argumental-pro and expletive pro (33) Italian Penso che parta oggi. ‘I think he is leaving today.’ think-IND.PRS.1SG that leaves-IND.PRS.3SG today (34) French Je pense qu’il part aujourd‘hui. I-SUB think-IND.PRS.1SG that he-SUB leaves-IND.PRS.3SG today ‘I think he is leaving today.’

(35) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 461 (no overt subject pronoun) Stusẹ́ vām asṿ inā br̥ hát. glorify-IND.PRS.1SG you-ACC.PL Aśvins-NOM.DU high-ADV ‘High I glorify you, o Aśvins’

(36) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 445 (overt subject pronoun) Stavisỵ ā́ mi tvā́ m aháṃ vísṿ asyāmr̥ ta bhojana. will glorify-IND.FUT.1SG you-ACC.SG I-NOM.SG of all-GEN.SG=deathless-VOC.SG nourisher-VOC.SG ‘I will glorify you, deathless nourisher of all things!’ (37) Russian Люблю тебя. ‘I love you.’ Ljublju tebja. love-IND.PRS.1SG you-ACC.SG (38) Russian Я люблил тебя. ‘I loved you.’ Ja ljublil tebja. I-NOM.SG loved-PART.PERF.NOM.SG you-ACC.SG 24 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

1.4. Avoidance of Ambiguity: Prepositions in Romance • Late Latin acc. *muro (< Latin mūrum) and dat. *muro (< Latin mūrō). But Romanian nom.-acc. ţara ‘earth’ (< nom. terra, acc. terram) and gen.-dat. ţare (< gen. terrae, dat. terrae) (39) Romanian (cf. Mardale 2007:202) fiul regelui ‘the son of the king, the king’s son’ the son-NOM-ACC.SG=DEF.ART of the king-GEN-DAT.SG (40) Romanian (cf. Mardale 2007:202) fiul de rege ‘the son of a king, the king’s son’ the son-NOM-ACC.SG=DEF.ART of the king-NOM.-ACC.SG (41) Old French: Chrestien de Troyes, Perceval, 2314 (ca 1180) an la prison le roi Artu in the-OBL.SG jail-OBL.SG the-OBL.SG king-OBL.SG Arthur-OBL.SG ‘in King Arthur’s jail’

2. Language contact 2.1. The Role of Language Contact • Claire Bowern (2008:187): ‘any detailed account of language change (no matter what the framework) must address the role of language contact’. • Alice Harris & Lyle Campbell (1995:120): ‘Syntactic borrowing is perhaps the most neglected and abused area of syntactic change. Excesses in the past are well known and require little comment here; more disturbing is that such problems persist even to the present day. Current views range from the extremes on the one hand, that syntactic borrowing is either impossible or is very rare, to on the other hand fanciful explanations that all otherwise unexplained syntactic eccentricities in a language may be due to foreign influence’. • Edward Sapir (1921:220): ‘Language is probably the most self-contained, the most massively resistant of all social phenomena’. 2.2. Nominal Classifiers in Modern Indo-Aryan and their IE Prehistory (42) Assamese (cf. Kakati 1941:267) mānuh-jan ‘the man’ rajā-janā ‘the king’ person=human being-CL king=human being-CL (43) Bengali (cf. Hackstein 2010:9, from Dasgupta 1983:20) śromik-car-jon ‘the four labourers’ labourer=four=human being-CL (44) Hittite: KUB 12.126 i27, KUB 24.9 ii 27.50 (cf. Hackstein 2010:14) LÚ UR.GI7-aš pešnaš ‘hunter’ hunter-NOM.SG man-NOM.SG (45) Oscan: Cp 25 from Capua (cf. Hackstein 2010:15, from Rix 2002:99) minateís ner(eís) ‘of the leader/hero Minatus’ Minatus-GEN.SG man-GEN.SG (46) Homeric Greek: ξ 102, ρ 200 (cf. Hackstein 2010:15) βώτορες ἄνδρες ‘herdsmen’ bṓ tores ándres herdsmen-NOM.PL men-NOM.PL (47) Homeric Greek: Γ 170 (cf. Hackstein 2010:36) βασιλῆι ἄνδρι ‘to the king’ basilē̃i ándri king-DAT.SG man-DAT.SG

(48) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VI 23c (cf. Hackstein 2010:9) mā́ nusọ jánah ̣ ‘a man’ man-NOM.SG human being-NOM.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 25

2.3. Sinhalese da (Slade 2013) (49) Colloquial Sinhalese (cf. Slade 2013:248) Chitra monǝwa dǝ gatte? Chitra what PCLE bought-IND.PST.3SG ‘What did Chitra buy?’ (50) Colloquial Sinhalese (cf. Slade 2013:250) Gunǝpālǝ dǝ Chitra dǝ Ranjit dǝ gamǝtǝ̣ giyē? Gunapala PCLE Chitra PCLE Ranjit PCLE village-DAT went-IND.PST.3SG ‘Was it Gunapala or Chitra or Ranjit who went to the village?’ (51) Sinhalese (cf. Slade 2013:246-247) Yam kumariyak ohu dutụ vā da oo ohu kerehi pilịñda REL princess-INDEF him sees-IND.PST.3SG.FEM PCLE she him towards connected sit ætikara gattāya. mind developed got-IND.PST.3SG.FEM ‘Whatever princess saw him fell in love with him.’ (52) Sinhalese (cf. Slade 2013: 249) Mokak dǝ wætuna. what PCLE fell-IND.PST.3SG ‘Something fell.’ • Sinhalese da < utā́ ho (< utá ‘and’ + ā́ ho ‘or’). Cf. the same polysemy in Tamil and Malayalam oo. (53) Classical Sanskrit: Bhāgavata-Purānạ 7, 5, 10 (cf. Slade 2013: 256) Buddhi-bhedah ̣ para-kr̥ ta utāho te svato ’bhavat? intellect-pollution-NOM.SG enemy-do-PST.PART.NOM.SG or-PCLE you self-GEN.SG become-IND.PST.3SG ‘Has the pollution of your intellect been brought about by enemies or by you yourself?’ (54) Pāli: Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Dhammapada ii, 96 (cf. Slade 2013:256) Kiŋ amhehi saddhiŋ āgamissasi udāhu pacchā? INTERR.PCLE us with you will come-IND.FUT.2SG or-PCLE later ‘Will you come with us or later?’

disjunctive question (‘or’) > interrogative particle (internal evolution) relative clause-closing particle > indefinite particle (contact-induced evolution) 2.4. ‘Linguistic Areas’ (Germ. Sprachbünde) • Kristian Sandfeld (1930): Balkan languages (Romanian, Serbo-Croatian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek) • Reduplication of the object (Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek) • Merging of genitive and dative (Romanian, Albanian, Modern Greek) • Use of enclitic pronouns in the function of possessive adjectives (Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek) • Constraining use of definite nouns after the preposition ‘with’ (Albanian, Romanian) • Loss of the infinitive (Romanian, Albanian except for the Gheg dialects, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Modern Greek) • Postposition of the definite article (Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian). • Helmut Schaller (1975:100-101): ‘primary balkanisms’ (primäre Balkanismen) and ‘secondary balkanisms’ (sekundäre Balkanismen) 2.5. The Construction of the ‘Presentative Particle’ (55) Modern Greek Νά ὁ Γιάννης. ‘Here is John.’ Ná ho Giánis. here the-NOM.SG John-NOM.SG 26 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(56) Modern Greek Νά τον. ‘Here he is.’ Ná ton. here him-ACC.SG (57) Modern Greek Νά με. ‘Here I am.’ Ná me. here me-ACC.SG • Origin of νά ná : 1° νά ná ‘that’ (< Ancient Greek ἵνα hína ‘in order to, so that’) 2° νά ná < *ἠνίδε *ēníde (< presentative particle ἤν ḗn ‘here’ + aorist imperative ἰδέ idé ‘see’, reduced to *ἠνί ēní through metanalysis of *ἠνίδε *ēníde as *ἠνί-δε *ēní- de) and then altered to *ἠνί ēní > *νί ní by regular aphaeresis and finally to νά ná by analogy to other adverbs in -α -a (like δά dá ‘so’ < δέ dé, ἀκόμα akóma ‘still, yet’ < ἀκόμη akómi) 3° Brian Joseph (1981): South Slavic particle na ‘here’ (Serbo-Croatian nâ, nȁ, Slovenian nâ, cf. Russian на na, Polish na, Czech na < PIE *nō, cf. Gr. νή nḗ, Lat. nē) (58) Bulgarian (cf. Joseph 2001:253) Ето го. ‘Here he is.’ Eto go. here him -ACC.SG (59) Macedonian Ене го. ‘Here he is.’ Ene go. here him-ACC.SG (60) Serbo-Croatian Ево ме. ‘Here I am.’ Evo me. here me-ACC.SG (61) Romanian (cf. Maiden 2006:55) Iată-le. ‘Here they are.’ here=them-OBL.PL (62) Albanian Ja njeri-u. ‘Here is the man.’ (= Lat. Ecce homo.) here man-NOM.SG=DEF.ART (63) Ancient Greek: Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 925 Ἰδοὺ ψίαθος. ‘Here is the rush-mat.’ Idoú psíathos. here rush-mat-NOM.SG (64) Lithuanian (cf. Petit 2010:158) Šè rañką. ‘Here is my hand.’ here hand-ACC.SG (65) Latvian (cf. Petit 2010:158) Šè rùoka. ‘Here is my hand.’ here hand-NOM.SG (66) Latin: Cicero, Attica, 13, 16 Ecce tuae litterae de Varrone. ‘Here are your letters from Varro.’ here your-NOM.PL letters-NOM.PL from Varro-ABL.SG (67) Latin: Plautus, Cistellaria, 283 Ecce me. ‘Here I am.’ here me-ACC.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 27

3. Gradualness • Henrik Birnbaum (1984:29): ‘A syntactic innovation is introduced, enters into competition with earlier existing forms and sequences, spreads, and, eventually, may entirely supersede any previous one’. 3.1. ‘Negative Genitive’ (Olga Kagan 2007) (68) Polish Czytam książkę. ‘I read a book / the book.’ I read-IND.PRS.1SG book-ACC.SG (69) Polish Nie czytam książki. ‘I do not read any book / the book.’ NEG I read-IND.PRS.1SG book-GEN.SG (70) Lithuanian Skaitau knygą. ‘I read a book / the book.’ I read-IND.PRS.1SG book-ACC.SG (71) Lithuanian Neskaitau knygos. ‘I do not read any book / the book.’ NEG=I read-IND.PRS.1SG book-GEN.SG

Language Genitive of negation Slavic languages Old Church Slavic Obligatory Slovenian Obligatory Polish Obligatory Russian Optional Ukrainian Optional Belarussian Optional Slovenian Optional Serbo-Croatian essentially absent Czech essentially absent Baltic languages Lithuanian Obligatory Latvian Optional Old Prussian Absent

(72) Old Czech: Bible Kralická (1579, Jn 2, 4) Vina nemají. ‘They do not have wine.’ wine-GEN.SG NEG=they have-IND.PRS.3PL Cf. Josef Dobrovský (1809:371): ‘In common usage this rule is not so strictly observed’. (73) Modern Czech Jím maso. I eat-IND.PRS.1SG meat-ACC.SG ‘I eat meat / the meat.’ (74) Modern Czech Nejím maso. NEG=I eat-IND.PRS.1SG meat-ACC.SG ‘I do not eat meat / the meat.’ • Olga Kagan (2007:155) about Russian: ‘an NP may appear in this Case [the genitive] if and only if it lacks commitment to existence in any given possible word that is made salient in the given sentence’. 3.2. Lexical Diffusion: the Indo-Aryan Particle kam • Alice Harris & Lyle Campbell (1995:49): ‘some syntactic phenomena spread from lexical item to lexical item’.

(75) Vedic Sanskrit: RV II 288 Tvé hí kam párvate ná śritā́ ny ápracyutāni you-LOC.SG thus-PCLE well-PCLE mountain-LOC.SG like leaning-NOM.NEUT.PL immovable-NOM.NEUT.PL dūlạ bha vratā́ ni. 28 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

o invincible-VOC.SG laws-NOM.NEUT.PL ‘On you as on a mountain the Laws lean, immovable, o invincible!’

(76) Vedic Sanskrit: RV X 134 Devébhyah ̣ kám avr̥ nị̄ ta mr̥ tyúm gods-DAT.PL PCLE preferred-IND.IMPERF.3.SG death-ACC.SG prajā́ yai kám amr̥ ́taṃ nā́ vr̥ nị̄ ta. gods-DAT.PL PCLE immortality-ACC.SG NEG=preferred-IND.IMPERF.3.SG ‘For the Gods’ sake, he chose death, he did not choose immortality for his descendants’ sake.’ • Nicholas Sims-Williams (1986): kám ‘to’ < relative adverb (‘where’ < PIE *ku̯ om) with ellipsis ‘to the gods’ < ‘where the gods are’. (77) Avestan (Old Iranian): Yasna 44, 20 At̰ īt̰ pǝrǝsā yōi pišiieintī aēibiiō kąm and PCLE I ask-IND.PRS.1.SG who-NOM.PL see-IND.PRS.3.PL those-DAT.PL PCLE yāiš gąm karapā usixš-čā by which means-INSTR.PL cattle-ACC.SG the Karapan priest-NOM.SG the Usig priest-NOM.SG=and aēšǝmāi dātā. violence-DAT.SG give-IND.PRS.3PL ‘And I ask those who see how for their sake (for the Daevas’ sake) the Karapan priest and the Usij give the cattle to violence.’ (78) Sogdian (cf. Gershevitch 1954:235) Kww myδ’n šwt. ‘It goes up to the waist.’ to waist it goes-IND.PRS.3.SG (79) Sogdian (cf. Yoshida 2009:331) ’Rtyxw mr’z mrtyy kw xtw s’r w’nw ptyškwy. and=the hired labour man to judge towards thus said-IND.IMPERF.3.SG ‘And the hired labourer addressed the judge thus.’ • Berthold Delbrück (1888:150): benefactive particle with datives of persons (dativus commodi) or abstracts (final dative) = ‘for the sake of’ > dative marker 3.3. Syntactic Synonymy • Stage 1: construction A (B not used) • Stage 2: construction A unmarked (construction B used in marked contexts) • Stage 3: construction A and B interchangeable • Stage 4: construction B unmarked (construction A used in marked contexts) • Stage 5: construction B (A not used)

4. Regularity 4.1. Linguistic ‘Universals’ • Gabriel Girard, Vrais Principes de la Langue françoise (1747:23-25): a. the ‘analogue languages’ (langues analogues), reproducing ‘the natural order and gradation of the ideas’ (l’ordre naturel & la gradation des Idées), i.e. SVO, and possessing a definite article, e. g. French, Spanish and Italian. b. the ‘transpositive languages’ (langues transpositives), following in their syntax ‘the fire of imagination’ (le feu de l’imagination) in that they have a case system, but no fixed word order, and lacking a definite article, e.g. Latin and Slavic. c. the ‘mixed or amphilogic languages’ (langues mixtes ou amphilogiques), corresponding to the analogue languages in that they possess a definite article and to the transpositive languages in that they have a case system and no fixed word order, e.g. Ancient Greek. • Wilhelm von Humboldt, August Schleicher: ‘monosyllabic languages’ (Chinese), ‘agglutinating languages’ (Turkish), ‘inflectional languages’ (Sanskrit) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 29

• Joseph Greenberg (1966):

Unconditional Implicational Absolute Any language has x If a language has x, it also has y Statistical The majority of languages has x If a language has x, it is likely to have y

4.2. Unconditional Absolute Universals: Interrogation (80) Classical Armenian: Jn. 18, 33 Դու ես թագաւոր-ն հրեից. Dow? es tʻagawor-n hreicʻ. you-NOM.SG are-IND.PRS.2SG king-NOM.SG=DEF.ART Jews-GEN.PL ‘Are you the king of Jews?’ (= Gr. σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ;) (81) Old High German: Otfrid von Weißenburg, Iesus fatigatus ex itinere, II, 14, 89 Scal iz Kríst sin, fro min? shall-IND.PRS.3SG it-NOM.SG Christ-NOM.SG be-INF lord-NOM.SG my-NOM.SG ‘Shall it be Christ, my Lord?’ (82) Modern Lithuanian (cf. Ambrazas, ed., 1997:712) Ar tu ateisi vakare? ‘Will you come in the evening?’ INTERR you-NOM.SG will come-IND.FUT.2SG evening-LOC.SG (83) English Does John swim? does-IND.PRS.3SG John swim 4.3. Singular vs. Plural: the τὰ ζῷα τρέχει tà zō̃ia trékhei-rule (84) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Β 396 Τὸν δ’ οὔ ποτε κύματα λείπει. ‘The waves never leave [leaves] him.’ Tòn d’ oú pote kúmata leípei him-ACC.SG PCLE NEG ever waves-NOM.NEUT.PL leaves-IND.PRS.3SG (85) Avestan (Old Iranian): Yašt 29, 4 Vīspa anaγra raočå usraočaiieiti. all-NOM.NEUT.PL beginningless-NOM.NEUT.PL lights-NOM.NEUT.PL is shining-IND.PRS.3SG ‘All the beginningless lights are [is] shining.’ (86) Hittite: Kbo 3.34 ii 18 (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008:240) mĀškali=ma uddār arāiš. ‘Accusations arose against Aškali.’ Aškali-DAT-LOC.SG=and-PCLE words-NOM.NEUT.PL arose-IND.PST.3SG 4.4. Implicational Universals • Bernard Comrie (1981:6): ‘An implicational universal always involves at least two linguistic properties, which we may symbolize as p and q, related to one another as an implication (condition), i.e. ‘if p, then q’.’ • William Croft (1990:47): ‘Implicational universals differ from unrestricted universals in that they do not assert that all languages belong to one type. Instead, they describe a restriction on logically possible language types that limits linguistic variation but does not eliminate it’. 4.5. Long-distance Relativization (Comrie 1981:154) (87) Persian (cf. Mahootian 1997) Mašin-i(-ro) ke pedær-æm zæd. ‘the car that my father hit’ car=DEM.(-OM) that father=POSS.1SG hit-IND.PRS.3SG (88) Persian (cf. Mahootian 1997) Mašin-i(-ro) ke goft-æm pedær-æm zæd. ‘the car that I said my father hit’ car=DEM.(-OM) that said.IND.PST.1SG father=POSS.1SG hit-IND.PRS.3SG (89) Latin: Cicero, Catilina 3, 27 Magna uis conscientiae quam qui neglegunt, great-NOM.SG power-NOM.SG conscience-GEN.SG which-ACC.SG those who-NOM.PL neglegt-IND.PRS.3PL 30 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

cum me uiolare uolent, se ipsi indicabunt. when me-ACC.SG attack-INF want-SUBJ.PRS.3PL REFL.-ACC.SG themselves-NOM.PL betray-IND.PRS.3PL ‘there is great power in conscience, and those who neglegt it when they want to attack me betray themselves.’ (lit. ‘in conscience, which those who neglegt...’) (90) Ancient Greek: Lysias, On the Refusal of a Pension 6 Πρόσοδός μοι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλη πλὴν ταύτης, Prósodós moi ouk éstin állē plḕn taútēs, income-NOM.SG to me-DAT.SG NEG is-IND.PRS.3SG other-NOM.SG besides this one-GEN.SG ἣν ἂν ἀφέλησθέ με, hḕn àn aphélēsthé me, which-ACC.SG if you deprive-SUBJ.AOR.2PL me-ACC.SG κινδυνεύσαιμ’ ἂν ὑπὸ τῇ δυσχερεστάτῃ γενέσθαι τύχῃ. kinduneúsaim’ àn hupò tē̃i duskherestátēi genésthai túkhēi. I would risk-OPT.AOR.1SG PCLE under the-DAT.SG most grevious-DAT.SG become-INF plight-DAT.SG ‘I have no other income besides this one, and, if you deprive me of it, I might be in danger of finding myself in the most grievous plight.’ (lit. ‘this one, which, if you deprive me of...’)

(91) Old Icelandic: Heimskringla I 64 (cf. Faarlund 2004:262) þau verk hans, er allir þeir, er heyrði, those-NOM.PL deeds-NOM.PL of him-GEN.SG which all-NOM.PL those-NOM.PL which heard-SUBJ.3PL vissi, at hégómi væri knew-IND.PST.3PL that nonsense-NOM.SG were-SUBJ.3PL ‘those deeds of his, which all those who heard them knew that they were nonsense’ (92) Russian девушка, которую я люблю ‘the girl that I love’ devuška, kotoruju ja ljublju girl-NOM.SG that-ACC.SG I-NOM.SG love-IND.PRS.1SG (93) Russian †девушка, которую ты думаѥшь, что я люблю †devuška, kotoruju ty dumaješ’, čto ja ljublju girl-NOM.SG that-ACC.SG you-NOM.SG think-IND.PRS.2SG that I-NOM.SG love-IND.PRS.1SG ‘the girl that you think I love’ • If a language has long-distance relativisation of direct objects, it must have immediate relativisation of direct objects. 4.6. NDem vs. NRel (Comrie 1981:47) • John A. Hawkins’ Universal XI’: ‘If a language has noun before demonstrative, then it has noun before relative clause’. 1. demonstrative and relative clause both follow the noun (NRel, NDem); 2. relative clause follows the noun and demonstrative precedes the noun (NRel, DemN); 3. *relative clause precedes the noun and demonstrative follows the noun (RelN, NDem); 4. demonstrative and relative clause both precede the noun (RelN, DemN).

NRel RelN NDem + - DemN + +

(1) [NDem → NRel]: Middle Welsh (94) Middle Welsh (cf. Morris-Jones 1913:294-295) y gŵ r hwn ‘this man’ the man this (95) Middle Welsh (cf. Morris-Jones 1913:284) y dyn a wnelo hyn ‘the man who does this’ the man REL does this Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 31

(2) [DemN → NRel]: Modern Bulgarian (96) Modern Bulgarian (cf. Scatton 1983:150) тази книга ‘this book’ tázi kníga this book (97) Modern Bulgarian (cf. Scatton 1983:381-382) книгата, която си купих вчера. ‘the book that I bought myself yesterday’ knígata, kojáto si kúpíx včéra. book=the which REFL I bought-IND.AOR.1SG yesterday (3) [DemN, RelN]: Hindi (98) Hindi (cf. McGregor 1972:8) yah larḳ ā ‘this boy’ this boy (99) Hindi (cf. Mahajan 2000:203) Jo Sītā ko acchā lagtā he, ‘I do not like the man whom Sita likes.’ REL Sita-DAT nice seem-IMP be-IND.PRS.3SG mujhe vo ādmī pasand nahī he. me-DAT that man like NEG be-IND.PRS.3SG (4) [NDem, RelN]: not attested

5. Directionality 5.1. Definition • A feature P can historically evolve to Q, but not Q to P. • If a language has property P, then it also tends to have property Q. 5.2. Synthetic-to-Analytic Trend: the Degrees of Comparison • Comparison: Eng. prouder > more proud. Cf. Vedic Sanskrit comparative (e.g. jávīyāṃs ‘quicker’) and superlative (e. g. jávisṭ ḥ a- ‘quickest’) • Ancient Greek βαθύ-τερος bathú-teros ‘deeper’, βαθύ-τατος bathú-tatos ‘deepest’, but Modern Greek πιο βαθύς pio bathús ‘deeper’ (besides βαθύ-τερος bathú-teros), ο πιο βαθύς o pio bathús ‘the deepest’. • Latin comparative in -ior → Fr. plus, It. più, Span. más, Rum. mai ‘more’ + positive. • Ossetic бӕрзонддӕр bærzonddær ‘higher’, but ӕппӕты бӕрзонддӕр æppæty bærzonddær ‘the highest’ < ‘the most+higher’. • Celtic Brittonic languages comparatives in *-ākos (Welsh -ach, Corn. -a, -e, Bret. -oc’h), cf. Latvian (Latv. -āks) < intensive suffix (cf. Lith. gerókas ‘quite good’ from gẽras ‘good’). 5.3. Synthetic-to-Analytic Trend: the Passive • Latin amatur ‘he is loved’ > Late Latin amatus est. • Scandinavian *finda(n) + reflexive pronoun *sik ‘to find itself’ > *finna-sk > Old Icelandic finnaz ‘to find itself, to be found’ (Poetic Edda, Vǫlospá, 61, 2), then Swedish baka-s ‘to be baked’, läsa-s ‘to be read’. 5.4. Implications: OV = VNeg vs. VO = NegV • Jan T. Faarlund (1990:9): a language with VO and postpositions ‘will change from postpositions to prepositions in order to conform to the universal implication P > Q’. • VO-language (Verb-Object) = NG-language (Noun+Genitive), since [Operand-Operator] • OV-languages (Object-Verb) = GN-languages (Genitive+Noun), since [Operator-Operand]. • John Hawkins’ ‘Principle of Crosscategorial Harmony’ (1983) OV-languages VO-languages Noun+Postposition Preposition+Noun Genitive+Noun Noun+Genitive Adjective+Noun Noun+Adjective 32 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

Suffixes Prefixes Main verb+Auxiliary verb Auxiliary verb+Main verb Adverb+Verb Verb+Adverb Verb+Negative Negative+Verb (1) VO = NegV: Italian (100) Italian (cf. Maiden, Robustelli, 22007:356) Paolo mangia la carne. ‘Paolo eats the meat.’ Paolo eats-IND.PRS.3SG the meat (101) Italian (cf. Godard, Marandin 2006:175) Paolo non viene. ‘Paolo does not come.’ Paolo NEG comes-IND.PRS.3SG (2) OV = NegV: Sinhalese (102) Sinhalese Mama bat kanavā. ‘I eat rice.’ I rice eat-IND.PRS.1SG (103) Sinhalese (cf. Masica 1991:391) Mama giyē nǣ . ‘I did not go.’ I went-IND.PST.1SG NEG (3) VO = VNeg: Swedish (104) Swedish (cf. Holmes, Hinchliffe 1997:105) John köpte huset. ‘John bought the house.’ John bought-IND.PST.3SG house=DEF.ART (105) Swedish John köpte inte huset. ‘John did not buy the house.’ John bought-IND.PST.3SG NEG house=DEF.ART (4) OV = NegV: Gujarati (106) Gujarati (cf. Cardona, Suthar, 2003:691) Hũ pǝysa apũ. ‘I will give the money.’ I money give-IND.PRS.1SG (107) Gujarati (cf. Cardona, Suthar, 2003:694) Kale Arunạ -bεn gam nǝ gǝyã. ‘Aruna did not go to the village yesterday.’ yesterday-LOC Aruna-HON village NEG go-PERF.NEUT.PL 5.5. Disharmony > Harmony? Disharmonic correlation Harmonic correlation

VO-VNeg > (a) VO-NegV (with VNeg > NegV) (b) OV-VNeg (with VO > OV) OV-NegV > (c) OV-VNeg (with NegV > VNeg) (d) VO-NegV (with OV-NegV) (1) [VO-VNeg] > [VO-NegV]: not attested (2) [VO-VNeg] > [OV-VNeg]: not attested (3) [OV-NegV] > [OV-VNeg]: Sinhalese and Bengali • Sinhalese postverbal negation nǣ < Middle Indo-Aryan preverbal negation *na (< PIE *ne-). Cf. Tamil vare-la ‘he cannot come’. • Old Bengali preverbal negation na (e.g. na jani ‘I don’t know’, cf. Sen 1958) > Modern Bengali postverbal negation (e.g. jani na ‘I don’t know’). Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 33

(4) [OV-NegV] > [VO-NegV]: Romance languages (108) Latin: Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 1, 20, 5 (cf. Devine & Stephens 2006:37) Caesar eius dextram prendit. ‘Caesar takes his right hand.’ Caesar-NOM.SG his-GEN.SG right hand-ACC.SG takes-IND.PRS.3SG (109) Italian Cesare prende la sua destra. ‘Caesar takes his right hand.’ Caesar-SG takes-IND.PRS.3SG the-SG his-SG right hand-SG (110) Latin: Caesar, De Bello Gallico, 5, 14, 2 Interiores plerique frumenta non serunt. interior-NOM.PL most-NOM.PL corn-ACC.PL NEG sow-IND.PRS.3PL ‘Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn.’ (111) Italian Gli abitanti dell’interno, per la maggior parte, the-PL inhabitants-PL of=the interior-SG for the-SG greater-SG part-SG non seminano grano. NEG sow-IND.PRS.3PL corn-SG ‘Most of the inland inhabitants do not sow corn.’ 5.6. Harmony > Disharmony? Harmonic correlation Disharmonic correlation

VO-NegV > (a) VO-VNeg (with NegV > VNeg) (b) OV-Neg V (with VO > OV) OV-VNeg > (c) OV-NegV (with VNeg > NegV) (d) VO-VNeg (with OV > VO) (1) [VO-NegV] > [VO-VNeg]: French (112) Middle French: Jehan de Joinville, Livre des saintes paroles et des bons faiz noster roy saint Looys, VI, 37 [1309] Après ces choses, messires li roys after these-OBL.PL things-OBL.PL mister-NOM.SG the-NOM.SG king-NOM.SG appela monsignour Phelippe son fil. called-IND.PST.3SG monsignor-OBL.SG Philip-OBL.SG his-OBL.SG son-OBL.SG ‘After these things the King called his son Philip.’ (113) Middle French: Jehan de Joinville, Livre des saintes paroles et des bons faiz noster roy saint Looys, II, 12 [1309] Je ne sai autre raison I NEG know-IND.PRS.1SG other-OBL.SG reason-OBL.SG ‘I don’t know any other reason.’ • Negative quantifiers pas < ‘step’ and point < ‘point’ (114) Middle French: Christine de Pisan, Le tresor de la cité des dames de degré en degré II, 9 [1405] Dieu ne fist pas justice. ‘God didn’t do justice.’ God-SG NEG did-IND.PST.3SG NEG justice-SG (115) Modern Colloquial French C’est pas rigolo. ‘It’s not funny.’ it=is-IND.PRS.3SG NEG funny • Middle French [VO-NegV] > Modern colloquial French [VO-VNeg]. (2) [VO-NegV] > [OV-NegV], [OV-VNeg] > [OV-NegV]: not attested (3) [OV-VNeg] > [VO-VNeg]: Kashmiri (116) Kashmiri (cf. Wali, Nath Koul 1997:117) Kẽh lǝdḳ ı gǝyi nı garı. ‘Some boys did not go home.’ some-PL boys went NEG home 34 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(117) Kashmiri (cf. Wali, Nath Koul 1997:83) Me por akhbār. ‘I read the paper.’ I-ERG read paper (4) Complex evolutions: Scandinavian languages [OV-NegV] > [VO-NegV] > [VO-VNeg] (118) Gothic: Wulfila’s New testament, Jn. 13, 38 Hana ni hrukeiþ. ‘The cock will not sing.’ (= Greek οὐ μὴ ἀλέκτωρ φωνήσῃ) cock-NOM.SG NEG sing-IND.PRS.3SG (119) Runic Germanic: Gallehus inscription (ca 395 CE) ek hlewagastiz : holtijaz : horna : tawido : I-NOM.SG Hlewagastiz-NOM.SG Holtijaz-NOM.SG horn-ACC.SG made-IND.PST.1SG ‘I, Hlewagstiz Holtijaz, made the horn.’ • Swedish postverbal negation inte. Conclusion • Winfred Lehmann (1973:55): ‘When languages show patterns other than those expected, we may assume that they are undergoing a transitional phase of change’. (!)

C. MECHANISMS OF SYNTACTIC CHANGE 1. General presentation • Alice Harris & Lyle Campbell (1995:50): ‘reanalysis’, ‘extension’ and ‘borrowing’ • ‘Borrowing is an external mechanism of change, involving motivations towards change from outside the affected language; reanalysis and extension are internal mechanisms’. • ‘Reanalysis is a change of function without change of surface structure, extension a change of surface structure without change of function’.

Stability Reanalysis Extension Refactoring Surface structure Change - Change - Change + Change + Underlying structure Change - Change + Change - Change +

2. Stability 2.1. Animate-inanimate distinction: PIE *ku̯ is / *ku̯ os ‘who?’ (animate), vs. *ku̯ id / *ku̯ od ‘what’ (inanimate) (1) Ancient Greek: Euripides, Ion, 258 (feminine agreement) – Τίς δ’ εἶ; [...] – Κρέουσα μέν μοι τοὔνομ’. – Tís d’ eĩ ? [...] – Kréousa mén moi toúnom’. who-NOM.SG PCLE you are-IND.PRS.2SG Kréousa-NOM.SG PCLE to me-DAT.SG the=name-NOM.SG ‘– Who are you? [...] – Kréousa is my name.’ (2) Ancient Greek: Euripides, Bacchae, 1280 (neuter agreement) – Ἔα, τί λεύσσω ; [...] – Ὁρῶ μέγιστον ἄλγος. – Éa, tí leússō? [...] – Horō̃ mégiston álgos. PCLE what-ACC.SG I see-IND.PRS.1SG I see-IND.PRS.1SG greatest-ACC.SG grief-ACC.SG ‘– What do I see? [...] – I see the greatest grief.’ (3) Hittite: KUB XLVIII 5 and 13 – Kuiš=u̯ ar=an ḫ aran dpiru̯ [-aš] [u]ruḫ aššuu̯ aza úu̯ atez[zi]? [...] who-NOM.SG=PCLE=it-ACC.SG eagle-ACC.SG Piru̯ a-GEN.SG Ḫaššuu̯ a-ABL.SG brings-IND.PRS.3SG – Úk=u̯ ar=an úu̯ ate][mi] I-NOM.SG=PCLE=it-ACC.SG bring-IND.PRS.1SG ‘– Who brings it, the eagle of Piru̯ a, from Haššuu̯ a? [...] – I am bringing it.’ (4) Hittite: KUB XXIX 1, II 5 and 8 – Nu kuit iššanzi? [...] – Nu LUGAL-u̯ aš MU.KAM.ḪI.A-uš malkii̯ anzi. PCLE what-ACC.SG they do-IND.PRS.3PL PCLE of the king-GEN.SG years-ACC.PL spin-IND.PRS.3PL ‘– What are they doing? – They are spinning the king’s years.’ Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 35

(5) Welsh (cf. King 1993:100) Pwy ydy hwnna? ‘Who is that?’ who is-IND.PRS.3SG that (6) Welsh (cf. King 1993:100) Beth yw’r lliw ’na? ‘What is that colour?’ what is-IND.PRS.3SG colour that (7) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Mt. 18, 1 Ով իցէ ի մէնջ մեծ յարքայութեան երկնից Ov? icʻē i mēnǰ mec y-arkʻayowtʻean erknicʻ who-NOM.SG is-SUBJ.PRS.3SG from us-ABL.SG great in=kingdom-LOC.SG heaven-GEN.PL ‘Who among us is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ (= Gr. τίς ἄρα μείζων ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν ;) (8) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Mt. 9, 5 Զինչ դիւրին է ‘What is easier?’ (= Gr. τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον ;) Zinčʻ? diwrin ē what-ACC.SG easy-NOM.SG is-IND.PRS.3SG (9) Tocharian A: A5a5-10a2, 38 (cf. Pinault 2008:255) Kuss aśśi sās? ‘Who is that girl?’ who-NOM.SG then that one-NOM.FEM.SG (10) Tocharian A: A5a5-10a2, 58 (cf. Pinault 2008:256) Kus tāk? ‘What happened?’ what-NOM.SG was-IND.PST.3SG (11) Lithuanian Kas atėjo? ‘Who came?’ who-NOM.SG came-IND.PST.3 (12) Lithuanian Kas atsitiko? ‘What happened?’ what-NOM.SG happened-IND.PST.3

3. Reanalysis 3.1. General Definition (13) German (cf. Humboldt 1836:276-277) Ich weiß das: du bist fertig. I-NOM.SG know-IND.PRS.1SG that-ACC.SG you-NOM.SG are-IND.PRS.2SG ready ‘I know that: you are ready.’ (14) German (cf. Humboldt 1836:276-277) Ich weiß, daß du fertig bist. . I-NOM.SG know-IND.PRS.1SG that-ACC.SG you-NOM.SG ready are-IND.PRS.2SG ‘I know that you are ready.’

[Ich weiß das:] [du bist fertig.] → [Ich weiß,] [daß du bist fertig.] → [Ich weiß,] [daß du fertig bist.]

Reanalysis Verb-final in subordinate clause

(15) Langacker (1977:62) I will define “reanalysis” as change in the structure of an expression or class of expressions that does not involve any immediate or intrinsic modifications of its surface manifestation. • Alan Timberlake (1977:141): ‘the gradual mapping out of the consequences of the reanalysis’. • Ronald Langacker (1977:64): boundary loss resegmentation boundary creation boundary shift

(syntactic/semantic) reformulation 36 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

3.2. ‘Serial Verbs’ • Mark Sebba (1987:2): ‘Serial Verb’ then has generally been used to refer to a surface string of verbs or verb-like or verb-phrase-like items which occur within what appears to be a single clause’. • Françoise Rose (2009: 644): ‘Serialization can be both viewed as an analytic way of expressing different aspects of the same event (‘take-come’ for ‘bring’) and as a synthetic way of expressing complex events that would be expressed with several clauses in other languages (‘hit-kill’ for ‘hit s.o. and kill them’)’. • Silvia Luraghi (1993:268): a. morphology: either only one verb in the string is inflected, or all verbs display the same morphology; b. syntax: the construction is paratactic (no subordination); however, there is no overt mark of coordination between the two verbs (therefore no sentence boundaries); c. semantics: only the last verb in the series displays its full lexical meaning; the preceding one(s) have undergone grammaticalization and often syntactic re-analysis; the two (or sometimes more) verbs are taken as referring to one event. (16) Hittite: KBo IV 3+i 23-24 (example and translation from Luraghi 1993:271) N=an uu̯ ami LÚKÚR-aš íu̯ ar GUL-aḫ mi. . PCLE=him-ACC.SG I come-IND.PRS.1SG enemy-GEN.SG as I fight-IND.PRS.1SG ‘I shall (come and) fight against him as an enemy.’ • Cf. Dorothy Disterheft (1985) (17) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Lk. 23, 26, cf. also Mt. 27, 2 (cf. Yates 2013:7) իբրեւ առին գնացին զնա ibrew aṙ in gnacʻin z-na as took-IND.AOR.3PL went-IND.AOR.3PL OBJ=him-ACC.SG ‘as they took him’ (= Gr. ὡς ἀπήγαγον αὐτόν) (18) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Ω 407 Ἄγε δή μοι πᾶσαν ἀληθείην κατάλεξον. Áge dḗ moi pā̃san alētheíēn katálekson. lead-IMPER.PRS.2SG PCLE to me-DAT.SG all-ACC.SG truth-ACC.SG tell-IMPER.AOR.2SG ‘Come now, tell me all the truth.’ (19) Ancient Greek: Plato, Ion, 538e Ἴθι μοι ἔξευρε Íthi moi ékseure go-IMPER.PRS.2SG for me-DAT.SG find out-IMPER.AOR.2SG καὶ τὰ τοῦ μάντεώς τε καὶ μαντικῆς. kaì tà toũ mánteṓs te kaì mantikē̃s. also the things-ACC.PL of the-GEN.SG seer-GEN.SG and seer’s art-GEN.SG ‘Go find out for me also those which are of the seer and the seer’s art.’ (20) Latin: Plautus, Stichus, 418 Age abduce hasce intro, lead-IMPER.PRS.2SG conduct-IMPER.PRS.2SG these-ACC.PL inside quas mecum adduxi, Stiche. whom-ACC.PL with me I have conducted-IND.PERF.1SG Stichus-VOC.SG ‘Go take these (girls) I have brought with me indoors, Stichus.’ (21) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VIII 412d = VIII 6410c Tásya ā́ ihi prá dravā píba. of this-GEN.SG PCLE go-IMPER.PRS.2SG PREV run-IMPER.PRS.2SG drink-IMPER.PRS.2SG ‘Come run drink of that!’ (22) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Mt. 8, 4, cf. Lk. 5, 14 Երթ ցոյց զանձն քո քահանային Ertʻ cʻoycʻ z-anjn kʻo kʻahanayi-n. go-IMPER.2SG show-IMPER.2SG OBJ=self-REFL you-GEN.SG priest-DAT.SG=DEF.ART ‘Go show yourself to the priest’ (= Gr. ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 37

(23) Hittite: KUB 14.10 + 24-25 Īt-u̯ ar-ašta párgamuš ḪUR.SAG.ḪI.A-ašaš šāḫ . . go-IMPER.2SG=PCLE=PCLE high-ACC.PL mountains-ACC.PL search-IMPER.2SG ‘Go search the high mountains.’ (24) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey, γ 332, cf. γ 475 (cf. Iliad, Γ 441 and Μ 348) Ἀλλ’ ἄγε τάμνετε μὲν γλώσσας, All’ áge támnete mèn glṓ ssas, but go-IMPER.PRS.2SG cut-IMPER.PRS.2PL PCLE tongues-ACC.PL κεράεσθε δὲ οἶνον. keráesthe dè oĩnon. mix-IMPER.PRS.2PL PCLE wine-ACC.SG ‘But come, cut out the tongues [of the victims] and mix the wine.’ (25) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VIII 2419 Éto nv Índraṃ stávāma. come-IMPER.PRS.2PL=PCLE(éta-u) now Indra-ACC.SG praise-SUBJ.PRS.1PL ‘Come now, let us praise Indra!’ Cf. George Dunkel (1985), Hans Henrich Hock (2002). (26) Modern Greek (cf. Joseph 1990:83) Έλα πές μου. ‘Come on, tell me.’ Éla pés mou. come-IMPER.PRS.2SG tell-IMPER.PRS.2SG me-GEN.SG 3.3. Reanalysis with Boundary Creation • Ronald Langacker (1977:77): ‘Selection is the process whereby one portion of a phonological sequence with a given semantic or syntactic role is singled out, or ‘selected’, and come to stand alone in that role’. 3.4. ‘Lexicalization’ or ‘Degrammaticalization’: Modern Irish (27) Early Modern Irish molfamaid ‘We will praise.’ praise-IND.FUT.1PL (28) Contemporary Connemara Irish molfaid muid ‘We will praise.’ praise-IND.FUT.1PL we (29) Contemporary Connemara Irish Is muide a rinne é. ‘It is we who did it.’ be we-PRON.EMPH.1PL who do-IND.PST it • Cf. Muriel Norde (2010:138): ‘debonding’ = ‘shift from bound morpheme (affix, clitic) to free morpheme’. 3.5. ‘Lexicalization’ or ‘Degrammaticalization’: Northern Swedish bö (Rosenkvist 2010) • Swedish behöva ‘to need’> Northern Swedish dialect of Piteå bö + höv (30) Northern Swedish dialect of Piteå Hä böhöv’n it djära. ‘He doesn’t need to do that.’ it need=he not do (31) Northern Swedish dialect of Piteå Hä bö’n it höv djära. ‘He doesn’t need to do that.’ it bö=he not höv do (32) Northern Swedish dialect of Piteå Hä bö’n it djära. ‘He doesn’t need to do that.’ it bö=he not do

[böhöv] [bö] [höv] prefix+root auxiliary verb (?) 38 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

3.6. Reanalysis with Boundary Creation: Final Infinitives (33) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VII 573 Samānám aṅ gy àṅ jate śubhé kám. same-ACC.SG ointment-ACC.SG they anoint themselves-IND.PRS.MED.3PL shining-DAT.SG PCLE ‘They anoint themselves in the same anointment in order to shine [for the shining]’ (34) Vedic Sanskrit: RV III 381 Kavī́n̆̇ r icchāmi saṁ dr̥ ́śe sumedhā́ h.̣ ‘I, the wise one, wish to see the poets.’ poets-ACC.PL I wish-IND.PRS.1SG seeing-DAT.SG wise-NOM.SG (35) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 3012 yáthā ta uśmasi isṭ ạ́ ye. when you-DAT.SG we wish-IND.PRS.1PL hasten-DAT.SG ‘when we wish that you hasten [we wish for you to hasten]’ (36) Vedic Sanskrit: RV I 501 Úd u tyáṁ jātávedasaṁ deváṁ vahanti there PCLE this-ACC.SG Jātavedasa-ACC.SG god-ACC.SG carry-IND.PRS.3PL ketávah ̣ dr̥ śé víśvāya sū́ ryaṁ . rays-NOM.SG seeing-DAT.SG all-DAT.SG sun-ACC.SG ‘The rays carry the god Jātavedasa there in order that all may see the sun.’ (37) Old Church Slavic: Suprasliensis 90, 6 Се поле сътворено бѣ конѥмъ тешти. Se pole sъtvoreno bě konjemъ tešti. this-NOM.SG field-NOM.SG created-NOM.SG was-IND.IMPERF.3SG horses-DAT.PL run-INF ‘This field was created for horses to run.’ (38) Lithuanian Įpyliau pieno kačiukams užlakti. I poured-IND.PST.1SG milk-GEN.SG kittens-DAT.PL to lap up-INF ‘I poured milk for kittens to lap up.’ (39) Hittite: KUB 39.71 i 24-25 N=aš šeḫ ḫ ilii̯ aš u̯ etenaš ḫ anuu̯ anzi paizzi. PCLE=she-NOM.SG purification-GEN.SG waters-DAT.PL to draw-INF goes-IND.PRS.3SG ‘She goes to draw the waters of purification.’

(40) Hieroglyphic Luvian: KARATEPE §XL REL-pa-wa/i-mu POST-na (DEUS)TONITRUS-hu-za-sá (DEUS)Rú-za-sá-ha sá-ta indeeed=QUOT=me behind Tarhunzas-NOM.SG Runzas-NOM.SG=HA were-IND.PST.3PL za-ti ‟CASTRUM”-si AEDIFICARE-MI-ná. this-DAT.SG fortress-DAT.SG to build-INF ‘Indeed Tarhunzas and Runzas were behind me to build this fort.’ (41) Lycian: TL 39, 5, 6 Me=ñne ni(j)=esu esedeñnewi epttehi ñtepi=tan(e). CONJ=them-DAT.PL PROHIB-shall be-IND.FUT.3SG descendants-DAT.PL their-DAT.PL into=to put-INF ‘Let it not be (permitted) to them to put in their descendants.’ (42) Lithuanian (cf. Ambrazas 2006:319) Pirkau arklį laukams arti. I bought-IND.PST.1SG horse-ACC.SG for fields-DAT.PL to plough-INF ‘I bought a horse in order to plough fields.’ 3.7. Boundary Shift

• [AB] [CD] > [A] [BCD], or [ABC] [D], or [AC] [BD], etc. Cf. German daß ‘that’: (43) Old High German: Otfried, Evangelienbuch II, 2, 8 (ed. Erdmann 1882:69) joh gizálτa in ʃar τház and told-IND.PST.3SG them-DAT.PL quickly-ADV that-ACC.SG τhiu ʃálida unτar ín uuaʃ. the-NOM.SG salvation-NOM.SG among them-DAT.PL was-IND.PST.3SG ‘And he quicly told them that: the salvation was among them.’ Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 39

(44) Old High German: Otfried, Evangelienbuch II, 3, 36-37 (ed. Erdmann 1882:69) uuánτ er deta mári for he-NOM.PL did-IND.PST.3SG known τhaz druhtin quéman uuari. that Lord-NOM.SG come-NOM.SG was-IND.PST.3SG ‘For he made known that the Lord had come.’ 3.8. The Proleptic Accusative • Bruce Fraser (2001:7): ‘the presence, in a completive construction, of a word or phrase in the main clause, which functions syntactically in it, and is also co-referent with the subject (or sometimes object) of the following subordinate clause’. (45) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Β 409 (cf. Monro 1891:238) ᾜδεε γὰρ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀδελφεὸν Ḗ dee gàr katà thumòn adelpheòn he knew-IND.PLUPERF.3SG PCLE in heart-ACC.SG brother-ACC.SG ὡς ἐπονεῖτο. hōs eponeĩto. how he worked hard-IND.IMPERF.3SG ‘He knew in his heart how his brother worked hard.’ (46) Ancient Greek: Xenophon, Cyropaedia, V, 1, 20 Ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς οἶδα σαφῶς ὅτι [...] ἐξήλθετε. Egṑ hūmā̃s oĩda saphō̃s hóti [...] eksḗlthete. I-NOM.SG you-ACC.PL know-IND.PERF.1SG clearly-ADV that you went out-IND.AOR.2PL ‘I clearly know that [...] you went out.’ (47) Sanskrit: Mahābhārata, I 156, 9 (cf. Speyer 1896:94 § 293, Gonda 1975:122 [1958]) Anujāṃs tu na jānāmi gaccheyur neti vā punah.̣ brothers-ACC.PL PCLE NEG I know-IND.PRS.1SG they go-OPT.PRS.3PL NEG or however-ADV ‘But of my brothers I do not know whether they will go or not.’ (48) Old Persian: DB 1, 52 (cf. Kent 1953:79) Mātyamām : xšnāsātiy : tya : adam : naiy : Bardiya : amiy. lest=me-ACC.SG know-SUBJ.PRS.3SG that I-NOM.SG NEG Smerdis-NOM.SG am-IND.PRS.1SG ‘Lest (the people) know me that I am not Smerdis.’ (49) Ossetic (cf. Christol 1989:66) Фыд зыдта рухс кӕсӕи сыд. Fyd zydta ruxs kæcæi cyd. father knew-IND.PST.3SG light from where came-IND.PST.3SG ‘The father knew where the light came form.’ (50) Latin: Plautus, Rudens, 328 (cf. Gonda 1975:118 [1958]) Num quid mihi meliust, quam ilico hic now what to me-DAT.SG better=is-IND.PRS.3SG than on the spot here opperiar erum, dum ueniat. I wait-SUBJ.PRS.1SG master-ACC.SG until he comes-SUBJ.PRS.3SG ‘Now what is better for me than to wait here on the spot until my master comes.’ (51) Italian: Boccacio, Decameron, 7, 8, 29 (cf. Fraser 2001:8) Tu’l saprai bene, rea femina, chi è. you-SUBJ=him-OBJ will know-IND.FUT.2SG well-ADV lewd woman who-REL he is-IND.PRS.3SG ‘You shall soon have cause enough to know him, lewd woman, who he is.’ (52) Occitan (cf. Sauzet 1989:242) Sabi ton pair que vendrà. I know-IND.PRS.1SG your father that he will come-IND.FUT.3SG ‘I know that your father will come.’ (53) Colloquial French Tu vas voir ton père ce que je vais lui dire. you’ll see your father what I’m going him to tell ‘You’ll see what I’m going to tell to your father.’ 40 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

(54) English: Shakespeare, 3 Henry VI, II, 1, 11-12 (cf. Fraser 2001:8) I [...] watch’d him how he singled Clifford forth. Analysis a. reanalysis of a relational accusative: [he knew about his brother + how he worked hard] → [he knew his brother how he worked hard]. b. ‘raising movement’ of the subject of the subordinate clause to the function of object in the matrix clause: [he knew how his brother worked hard] → [he knew his brother how he worked hard]. c. contamination of two distinct syntactic patterns: [he knew how his brother worked hard] + [he knew his brother] On b. (a) he knew how his brother [NOM.] worked hard

(b) he knew his brother [ACC.] how he worked hard

(55) Ancient Greek: Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 767 (cf. Gonda 1975:121 [1958]) Δέδοικ’ ἐμαυτόν, ὦ γύναι, Dédoik’ emautón, ō̃ gúnai, I fear-IND.PERF.1SG myself-ACC.SG PCLE lady-VOC.SG μὴ πόλλ’ ἄγαν / εἰρημέν’ ᾖ μοι. mḕ póll’ ágan / eirēmén‘ ēi moi. that many things-NOM.PL too much-ADV said-NOM.PL is-SUBJ.PRS.3SG by me-DAT.SG ‘I fear, lady, that many words have been pronounced by me too harshly.’ (56) Colloquial French Tu vas voir ton père ce que je vais lui dire. you’ll see your father what I’m going him to tell ‘You’ll see what I’m going to tell to your father.’ (57) Colloquial French Ton père, tu vas voir ce que je vais lui dire. your father you’ll see what I’m going him to tell ‘You’ll see what I’m going to tell to your father.’ (58) Latin: Cicero, Attica, 10, 4, 8 (cf. Bortolussi 2006:33) De Hispaniis non dubitabat quin Caesaris essent. about Spains-ABL.PL NEG doubted-IND.IMPERF.3SG that Cesar-GEN.SG were-SUBJ.IMPERF.3PL ‘About the two Spains he did not doubt that they were in the hands of Cesar.’ On c. (a) he knew how his brother [NOM.] worked hard (c) he knew his brother [ACC.] how he worked hard (b) he knew his brother [ACC.]

(59) Ancient Greek: Aristophanes, Clouds, 842 Γνώσει δὲ σαυτὸν ὡς ἀμαθὴς εἶ Gnṓ sei dè sautòn hōs amathḕs eĩ you will know-IND.FUT.2SG PCLE yourself-ACC.SG how ignorant-NOM.SG you are-IND.PRS.3SG καὶ παχύς. kaì pakhús. and stupid-NOM.SG ‘And you will know yourself how ignorant and stupid you are.’ • Bruce Fraser (2001:10): ‘Prolepsis is not the result of movement, or of a regular anaphoric relationship, but is anacoluthic, because the accusative functions in both clauses: it is a real object of the main verb, as well as having a semantic function in the subordinate clause. This double role typically leads to prosodic emphasis.’ Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 41

(60) Latin: Plautus, Miles gloriosus, 1045 Viden tu ignauum, ut sese infert? see-IND.PRS.2SG=PCLE you-NOM.SG fool-ACC.SG how himself-ACC.SG carries-IND.PRS.3SG ‘Do you see the fool, how he struts?’ 3.9. ‘Syntactic/Semantic Reformulation’ (61) Ronald Langacker (1977:79) Reformulation is reanalysis that involves aspects of structure more abstract than the occurrence and placement of morpheme boundaries; these aspects include rules, semantic and syntactic categories, and semantic or syntactic configurations (such as tree structures). (62) William Croft (2000:121) Form-function reanalysis involves the remapping of the relationship between form and function in a grammatical construction. (63) William Croft (2000:121) In HYPERANALYSIS, the listener reanalyzes an inherent semantic/functional property of a syntactic unit as a contextual property (usually, a property of another syntactic unit of the construction). In the reanalysis, this inherent property of a syntactic unit is then attributed to the context (often another unit in the construction), and so the syntactic unit in question loses some of its meaning or function. (64) William Croft (2000:126) In HYPOANALYSIS, the listener reanalyzes a contextual semantic/functional property as an inherent property of the syntactic unit. In the reanalysis, the inherent property of the context (often the grammatical contexte [...]), is then attributed to the syntactic unit, and so the syntactic unit in question gains a new meaning or function. 3.10. Hyperanalysis: Loss of Governed Oblique Case in Slavic (65) Russian (cf. Kagan 2013:7) Он ждал чуда. ‘He was waiting for a miracle.’ On ždal čuda. he-NOM.SG waited-PART.PST.NOM.SG miracle-GEN.SG • Intensional actions (e.g. требовать trebovat’ ‘demand’, искать iskat’ ‘look for’) or non-immediate contact (e.g. бояться bojat’sja ‘be afraid of’, избегать izbegat’ ‘escape’). • Alan Timberlake (1977:158): ‘the genitive expresses a limitation on the extent to which an object participates in the event’. (66) Russian (cf. Kagan 2013:96) Дима ждёт русалку. ‘Dima is waiting for a mermaid.’ Dima ždët rusalku. Dima-NOM.SG waits-IND.PRS.3SG mermaid-ACC.SG 3.11. Hypoanalysis: Indicative Presents > Subjunctives or Futures • Cf. Martin Haspelmath (1998:36-37) Middle and Modern Welsh (67) Middle Welsh: Dafydd ap Gwilym, Cyfeddach, 27 (14th century) Hawdd yfaf. ‘Easily I drink.’ easily I drink-IND.PRS.1SG (68) Middle Welsh: Dafydd ap Gwilym, Y Mwdwl Gwair, 29 (14th century) Cymynnaff dy gorff adref. ‘I will commend your body home.’ I commend-IND.PRS.1SG your body-SG home (69) Middle Welsh: Dafydd ap Gwilym, Tri Phorthor Eiddig, 65 (14th century) Rhydd y mae Duw yn rhoddi. ‘God gives me the freedom.’ free PCLE is-IND.PRS.3SG God-SG in giving-VERBAL.NOUN (70) Modern Welsh (cf. T. A. Watkins 1992:92) Mae’r bachgen yn gweld y dyn. ‘The boy sees the man.’ is-IND.PRS.3SG=DEF.ART boy-SG in seeing the man-SG 42 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

Hittite (71) Hittite: KBo 32.19 II 24 (cf. Hackstein 2004:86) URUEblan URU-an ḫ arnikmi. Ebla-ACC.SG city-ACC.SG I destroy-IND.PRS.1SG ‘I will destroy the city of Ebla.’(note that the text is translated from Hurrian KBo 32.19 I 24: ardi-ma URUEbla fabedau, with the future fabedau) Gothic (72) Gothic: Wulfila’s New testament, Mt. 5, 25 (cf. Krause 1968:204) Jah in karkara galagjaza. and in jail-ACC.SG you are thrown-IND.PRS.MED.2SG ‘And you will be thrown into jail.’ (= Greek καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήσῃ) Slavic (73) Russian (cf. Senn 1949:404) Я смотрю в окно. ‘I am looking through the window.’ Ja smotr’u v oknó. I-NOM.SG look-IND.PRS.IMPERF.1SG in window-ACC.SG (74) Russian (cf. Senn 1949:404) Я посмотрю в окно. ‘I will look (once) through the window.’ Ja posmotr’u v oknó. I-NOM.SG look-IND.PRS.PERF.1SG in window-ACC.SG 3.12. Ambiguity • Alan Timberlake (1977:148): ‘A necessay precondition for reanalysis, I would claim, is an ambiguity in the output’.

4. Extension • Alice Harris & Lyle Campbell (1995:97): ‘change in the surface manifestation of a syntactic pattern that does not involve immediate or intrinsic modification of underlying structure’ • ‘Generalisation’: extension of a rule to new contexts (rule extension) or loss of a former distinction or removal of exceptions (rule loss). • Hans Henrich Hock (1986:357): ‘reinterpretation-cum-extension’ • extension: A = [– > +], vs. B = [+ > –] • recession: A [+ > –], vs. B [– > +] • shift: A [+1 > +2], vs. B [+2 > +x] and C [+y > +1] 4.1. The Instrumental Case in Old High German (75) Old High German: Hildebrandlied 53 (cf. also Hildebrandlied 63) Nu scal mih suasat chind suertu hauwan. nun must-IND.PRES.-PERF.3SG me-ACC.SG own-NOM.SG child-NOM.SG sword-INSTR.SG strike-INF ‘Now my own child should strike me with his sword.’ (76) Old High German: Hildebrandlied 37 Mit geru scal man geba infahan with spear-INSTR.SG must-IND.PRS.-PERF.3SG one-NOM.SG gift-ACC.SG receive-INF ‘One must receive a gift by the spear.’ (77) Old High German: Hildebrandlied 19 (cf. 26) miti Theotrihhe ‘with Dietrich’ with Dietrich-DAT.SG • Cf. in pardisu ‘in paradise’ (Muspilli 16). Modern German heute ‘today’ (< Old High German hiutu < *hiu tagu ‘this day’), heuer ‘this year’ (< Old High German hiuru < *hiu jāru ‘this year’). 4.2. Syntactic Shift

• A construction A shifts from one function (1) to another function (2). As a result, a construction B gives up the function (2) acquired by A, and a construction C acquires the capacity of serving the function (1), lost by A. Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 43

4.3. The Tense System in Armenian Classical Armenian • Synthetic present indicative (e.g. ածեմ acem ‘I bring, I am bringing’), synthetic present subjunctive (e.g. ածիցեմ acic‘em), vs. aorist stem (ind. ածի aci, subj. ածծից acc‘em). (78) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Jn. 19, 4 Ահա ածեմ զնա առ ձեզ արտաքս Aha acem zna ar̄ jez artakʻs. see I bring-IND.PRS.1SG OBJ=him-ACC.SG to you-ACC.PL out ‘See, I am bringing him out to you.’ (= Gr. Ἴδε ἄγω ὑμῖν αὐτὸν ἔξω.) (79) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Lk. 15, 8 Կամ ո իցէ կին որոյ իցեն Kam o? icʻē kin oroy icʻen or who-NOM.SG would be-SUBJ.PRS.1SG woman-NOM.SG of whom-GEN.SG would be-SUBJ.PRS.3SG դրամք տասն եւ եթե կորուսանիցէ դրամ մի dramkʻ tasn ew etʻe korowsanicʻē dram mi drachms-NOM.PL ten-NOM.PL and if would lose-CONJ.PRS.3SG drachm-ACC.SG one-ACC.SG ոչ լուցանիցէ ճրագ եւ ածիցեէ աւել očʻ? lowcʻanicʻē črag ew acicʻē awel NEG would light-SUBJ.PRES.3SG lamp-ACC.SG and would lead-SUBJ.PRS.3SG broom-ACC.SG ի տան. ï tan. in house-ACC.SG ‘Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, would not light a lamp and sweep the house?’ (= Gr. Ἤ τίς γυνὴ δραχμὰς ἔχουσα δέκα ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃ δραχμὴν μίαν οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν ;) (80) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Lk. 14, 20 Կին ածի. Kin aci. woman-ACC.SG I led-IND.AOR.1SG ‘I have married a wife.’ (= Gr. γυναῖκα ἔγημα.) (81) Classical Armenian: Mesrop’s New Testament, Lk. 12, 37 Ամէն ասեմ ձեզ զի գաւտի ընդ մէջ Amēn asem jez zi gawti ǝnd mēǰ amen I say-IND.PRS.1SG to you-DAT.PL that belt-ACC.SG around kidney-ACC.SG ածցէ եւ բազմեցուսցէ. accʻē ew bazmecʻowscʻē. he will lead-SUBJ.AOR.3SG and he will seat-SUBJ.AOR.3SG ‘I say to you that he will dress himself and seat them at table’ (= Gr. λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι περιζώσεται καὶ ἀνακλινεῖ αὐτούς.)

Classical Armenian Present Aorist Indicative Real present Real past Conjunctive Conditional present Real future

Modern Armenian • Present subjunctive (conjunctive of գամ gam + conjunction ու u + present indicative) (82) Modern Eastern Armenian (cf. Dum-Tragut 2009:239) Բերեմ եւս մեկ հետաքրքիր օրինակ. Berem ews mek hetakʻrkʻir ōrinak. I wish to bring-IND.FUT.1SG yet another interesting example-ACC.SG ‘I wish to bring yet another interesting example.’ (83) Modern Western Armenian (cf. Sakayan 2012:113) Գրեմ. ‘I wish to write.’ Kʻrem. I should write-SUBJ.PRS.1SG • Present: կայ kay ‘there is’ + եւ ew ‘and’ + the ancient indicative present. 44 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

• Middle Armenian: kay + ew > particle գու gow > գը gǝ > Modern Armenian գը gǝ (+ ind. prs.) (84) Modern Western Armenian (cf. Sakayan 2012: 12) Նամակ գը գրեմ. Namag gǝ kʻrem. letter-ACC.SG PCLE I write-IND.PRS.1SG ‘I am writing, I write a letter.’ • Eastern Armenian: present formation reanalysed as a future (e.g. կբերեմ kberem ‘I will carry’, see below); new present (verbal noun in -ում -um + auxiliary ‘to be’, 1rd person եմ em) (85) Modern Eastern Armenian (cf. Dum-Tragut 2009:217) Գրում եմ. ‘I am writing, I write.’ Grum em. writing-NOM.SG I am-IND.PRS.1SG (86) Modern Eastern Armenian (cf. Dum-Tragut 2009:230) Բերի. ‘I carried.’ Beri. I carried-IND.AOR.1SG (87) Modern Western Armenian (cf. Sakayan 2012:91) Բերի. ‘I carried.’ Peri. I carried-IND.AOR.1SG • Future: գամիմ gamim ‘to want’ + infinitive (88) Modern Eastern Armenian (cf. Vaux 1995:135) Կբերեմ. ‘I will carry.’ Kberem. PREF.-I carry-IND.PRS.1SG (89) Modern Eastern Armenian (cf. Dum-Tragut 2009:233) Գնալու եմ. ‘I will go.’ Gnalu em. being about to go-PART.NOM.SG I am-IND.PRS.1SG (90) Modern Western Armenian (cf. Sakayan 2012:136) Պիտի գրեմ. ‘I will write.’ Bidi kʻrem. PCLE write-SUBJ.PRS.1SG • Bert Vaux (1995:141-142): 1. The classical subjunctive formations (present and aorist) disappeared. 2. The present subjunctive was replaced by the old simple present. 3. The aorist subjunctive (= future) was replaced by a variety of present, desiderative, and obligatory formations. 4. A new (progressive) formation replaced the simple present in the middle Armenian period. 5. The modern dialects created many new progressive and obligatory formations.

5. Syntactic Refactoring 5.1. Categorial Loss: the Distinction between Position and Direction

(91) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VII 705 (position = locative duronẹ́ ‘in the house’) Imá r̥ tásya vāvr̥ dhur duronẹ́ . ‘They grew in the house of order.’ they-NOM.PL order-GEN.SG grew-IND.PERF.3PL house-LOC.SG

(92) Vedic Sanskrit: RV VII 604bc (direction = accusative chukrám árnạ h ̣ ‘to the brilliant wave’) Ā́ sū́ ryo aruhac chukrám árnạ h.̣ ‘To the brilliant wave the Sun rose.’ PCLE Sun-NOM.SG rose-IND.AOR.3SG brilliant-ACC.SG wave-ACC.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 45

(93) Hittite: KUB 8.41. III 9 (position = dative-locative ne-pí-ši ‘in heaven’) Ne-pí-ši e-eš[-ši. ‘You sit in heaven.’ heaven, sky-LOC.SG you sit-IND.PRS.2SG (94) Hittite: KUB 29.30 (+) 35 III 13’ = Friedrich 1959:II, § 54 (direction = allative ta-a-ak-na-̣ a ̣ ‘into the earth’) (GIŠel-zi-mi-it-u̯ )]a ta-a-ak-na-̣ a ̣ [(ar-ši-)]ki-e-it. ‘Meine Waage ist in die Erde geflossen.’ waage-NOM.SG earth-ALL.SG has run-IND.PST.3SG (95) Spanish (cf. Butt & Benjamin 1988, 21994:420) Vive en Londres. ‘He is living in London.’ lives-IND.PRS.3SG in London (96) Spanish (cf. Butt & Benjamin 1988, 21994:420) Fue a París. ‘He went to Paris.’ went-IND.PST.3SG to Paris (97) Modern Greek (cf. Holton, Mackridge, Philippaki-Warburton 1997:402) Μένω στην Πάτρα. ‘I live in Patras.’ Méno stin Pátra. I live-IND.PRS.1SG in=the-ACC.SG Patras-ACC.SG (98) Modern Greek (cf. Holton, Mackridge, Philippaki-Warburton 1997:402) Πήγα στην Πάτρα. ‘I went to Patras.’ Píγa stin Pátra. I went-IND.PST.1SG in=the-ACC.SG Patras-ACC.SG (99) Dialectal Latvian: Barons, Wissendorff, Latwju dainas 387 (BW I [1893]), cf. Gāters (1993:187) Es kalnâ, tu lejâ. ‘I am on the hill, you in the valley.’ I-NOM.SG hill-LOC.SG you-NOM.SG valley-LOC.SG (100) Dialectal Latvian: Barons, Wissendorff, Latwju dainas 5440 (BW II [1909]), cf. Gāters (1993:187) Rihtu eeſchu baſniʒâ. ‘Tomorrow I will go to the church.’ tomorrow I will go-IND.FUT.1SG church-LOC.SG (101) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey, ν 294 ἐν σῇ περ ἐὼν γαίῃ ‘being in your land’ en sē̃i per eṑ n gaíēi in your-DAT.SG PCLE being-NOM.SG land-DAT.SG (102) Ancient Greek: Homer, Odyssey, ζ 119 Τέων αὖτε βροτῶν ἐς γαῖαν ἱκάνω ; Téōn aũte brotō̃n es gaĩan hikánō ? what-GEN.PL PCLE mortals-GEN.PL into land-ACC.SG I come-IND.PRS.1SG ‘To the land of what mortals am I come?’

(103) Old Lithuanian: Martynas Mažvydas, Catechismusa Praſty Sʒadei 545 [1547] O Diewe kurſs dąngui eſʒi. ‘O God, who are in heaven!’ o God-VOC.SG who-NOM.SG in heaven-LOC.SG are-IND.PRS.2SG

(104) Old Lithuanian: Martynas Mažvydas, Gesmes Chrikſscʒoniſkas 29215 [1560] Uſchʒ̇ e̗ ge ing dąngu. ‘He ascended to heaven.’ ascended-IND.PST.3 into heaven-ACC.SG 5.2. Development of New Categories: the Celtic Equative • Old Irish (suffix -ithir, cf. dían ‘quick’, equative déinithir ‘as quick as’ + acc.); Middle Welsh (suffix -het and/or prefix cyn-, cf. glân ‘clean’, equative glaned or cyn glaned ‘as clean as’ + â, ag) (105) Old Irish: Togail Bruidne Da Derga 19-20 (ed. Knott 1936:1, cf. Mc Cone 2005:138) Batar gilithir / sneachta n-oenaichde na dí dóit. were-IND.PST.3PL as white-EQU snow-ACC.SG ART=of one night-GEN.SG the two hands-NOM.DU ‘White as the snow of one night were the two hands.’ (106) Welsh (cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998:305) Mae fy mrawd yn dawnsio cyn wiched is-IND.PRS.3SG my-SG brother-SG PRS dance as splendid-EQU 46 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

ag y mae fy chwaer yn canu. as that is-IND.PRS.3SG my-SG sister-SG PRS sing ‘My brother dances as beautifully as my sister sings.’ • Middle Breton *-het, e.g. cazr, caezr ‘beautiful’, equative cazret, caezr(h)et, or analytical construction (quen ‘as’ + positive + ha(c) ‘and’ or euel ‘as’) • Cornish (mar or maga ‘so, as’ + positive + avel ‘as’), cf. meur ‘big’ / kymmys, kemmys ‘as much’. • Modern Welsh cyn X-ed â ‘as X as’ or mor + positive + ag (e.g. mor wyn ag eira ‘as white as snow’ replacing cyn wynned â’r eira). • Modern Irish comh deacair le ‘as difficult as’. • Martin Haspelmath & Oda Buchholz (1998:290): (i) relative-based equative constructions, (ii) constructions primarily characterized by a parameter marker, (iii) constructions exclusively characterized by a standard marker. (107) English (cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998:291) My sister is as pretty as you. my sister-SG is-IND.PRS.3SG as pretty as you (108) Italian (cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998:291) Mia sorella è carina come te. ‘My sister is as pretty as you.’ my-SG sister-SG is-IND.PRS.3SG pretty-SG as you (109) Swedish (cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998:294) Min syster er lika vacker som dig. ‘My sister is as pretty as you.’ my-SG sister-SG is-IND.PRS.3SG equally pretty-SG as you • Brittonic equative -het < *-is-etos (e.g. Middle Welsh glaned ‘as clean as’ < *glan-isetos ‘cleanest, very clean’); construction cyn... â or ag (cyn ‘together’ < *kom- + â, ag ‘with’ < *ad-gos • Irish equative -ithir (e.g. déinithir ‘as quick as’, leithir ‘as large as’, duibithir ‘as dark as’) < *-is-et-eros • Kim Mc Cone (2005:139): Old Irish gilithir sneachta ‘as white as snow’ (equative + accusative) < ‘very white with regard to snow, like snow’. 5.3. Development of New Categories: the Latvian debitive • ‘Debitive mood’ (Latv. vajadzības izteiksme). (110) Latvian (cf. Holvoet 2007:174) Man jābeidz šis darbs. ‘I must finish this job.’ to me-DAT.SG finish-DEB.PRS.3 this-NOM.SG job-NOM.SG (111) Latvian (cf. Holvoet 2007:174) Man tevi jābrīdina. ‘I must warn you.’ to me-DAT.SG you-ACC.SG warn-DEB.PRS.3 (112) Latvian (cf. Holvoet 2007:173) Vasarā bija agri jāceļas. ‘In the summer one had to rise early.’ summer-LOC.SG was-IND.PST.3 early-ADV rise-DEB.PRS.3=REFL (113) Latvian (cf. Holvoet 2007:175) Nav jābūt Aristotelim. ‘One doesn’t need to be an Aristotle.’ is not-IND.PRS.3 to be-DEB.PRS.3 Aristotle-DAT.SG (114) Latvian (cf. Holvoet 2007:187) *Man nav jā ēst. ‘I do not have what to eat.’ to me-DAT.SG is not-IND.PRS.3 what-REL.GEN.SG to eat-INF (lit. ‘To me is not what to eat.’) (115) Polish (cf. Holvoet 2007:187) Nie mam co czytać. ‘I do not have what to read.’ NEG I have-IND.PRS.1SG what-REL.ACC.SG to read-INF (116) Old Latvian: Christopher Glück, Bibele, Jn. 4, 32 (cf. Holvoet 2007:186) Man ir Barriba jaehd. ‘I have meat to eat.’ to me-DAT.SG is-IND.PRS.3 meat-NOM.SG eat-DEB.PRS.3 (lit. ‘To me is meat what to eat.’) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 47

(117) Latvian Man jāēd barība. ‘I must eat meat.’ to me-DAT.SG eat-DEB.PRS.3 meat-NOM.SG (118) Latvian (cf. Holvoet 2007: 190) *Man (ir) maize juo ēst. to me-DAT.SG is-IND.PRS.3 bread-NOM.SG with which-REL.ACC.SG eat-DEB.PRS.3 ‘I have some bread to eat.’ (119) Latvian *Man (ir) jā ēst maizi. ‘I must eat meat.’ to me-DAT.SG is-IND.PRS.3 from which-REL.ACC.SG eat-DEB.PRS.3 bread-ACC.SG 4.4. Development of New Categories: the Albanian Admirative • ‘Admirative’ (Alb. mënyra habitore): (120) Albanian (cf. Friedman 2004:109) Ti je n’ Amerikë. ‘You are in America.’ (simple statement) you-NOM.SG. are-IND.PRS.2SG. in America-ACC.SG (121) Albanian (cf. Friedman 2004:109) Ti qenke n’ Amerikë. ‘You are in America!’ (surprise) you-NOM.SG are-ADMIR.PRS.2SG in America-ACC.SG (122) Albanian (cf. Friedman 2014: 34) Ai paska një letër. ‘[Apparently] he has a letter.’ he-NOM.SG has-ADMIR.PRS.3SG one-ACC.SG letter-ACC.SG

PERFECT ADMIRATIVE PRESENT kam qenë ‘I have been’ qenkam ‘I am-ADM.’ kam pasur ‘I have had’ paskam ‘I have-ADM.’ kam punuar ‘I have worked’ punuakam ‘I work-ADM.’ kam marrë ‘I have taken’ marrkam ‘I take-ADM.’ kam shkruar ‘I have written’ shkruakam ‘I write-ADM.’ auxiliary kam + participle truncated participle + auxiliary kam • Cf. Megleno-Romanian: perfect au̯ vizút(ă) ‘I have seen’, vs. admirative vizút-ău̯ ‘I see!’ (123) Old Albanian, Gjon Buzuku, Meshari, folio LXVI/2 = Jn 20, 2 (cf. Demiraj 1993:305) Marechiʃneh tene Ɛone en vorit. they took-ADMIR.IMPERF.3PL Lord-ACC.SG in tumb-ABL.SG ‘They have taken the Lord from the tumb.’ (= Lat. Tulerunt dominum de monumento)

6. Grammaticalization 6.1. General Presentation • Antoine Meillet (1922:131 [1912]): ‘le passage d’un mot autonome au rôle d’élément grammatical’. • Antoine Meillet (1922:140-141 [1912]): ‘Les langues suivent ainsi une sorte de développement en spirale: elles ajoutent des mots accessoires pour obtenir une expression intense; ces mots s’affaiblissent, se dégradent et tombent au niveau de simples outils grammaticaux; on ajoute de nouveaux mots ou des mots différents en vue de l’expression; l’affaiblissement recommence, et ainsi sans fin’. • Jerzy Kuryłowicz (1965:9): ‘Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of a morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status, e.g. from a derivative formant to an inflectional one’. • Martin Haspelmath (2004:26): ‘A grammaticalization is a diachronic change by which the parts of a constructional schema come to have stronger internal dependencies’. 48 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

• Winfred Lehmann (2002:12): The phases of grammaticalization

level Discourse Syntax Morphology Morphonemics technique isolating > analytic > synthetic- > synthetic- > zero agglutinating flexional

phase syntacticization morphologization demorphemicization loss

grammaticalization process

lexical → syntactic: syntacticisation syntactic → morphemic: agglutinative morphologisation morphemic → inflectional: inflectional demorphemicisation inflectional → zero • Winfred Lehmann: ‘This has three principal aspects. First, in order to be autonomous, a sign must have a certain weight, a property which renders it distinct from the members of its class and endows it with prominence in the syntagm. Second, autonomy decreases to the extent that a sign systematically contracts certain relations with other signs; the factor inherent in such relations which detracts from autonomy will be called cohesion. Third, a sign is the more autonomous the more variability it enjoys; this means a momentary mobility or stability with respect to other signs’.

axis paradigmatic syntagmatic parameter Weight integrity structural scope Cohesion paradigmaticity bondedness Variability paradigmatic variability syntagmatic variability

• Joan Bresnan et alii (2012:8):

axis paradigmatic syntagmatic parameter Weight Attrition Condensation Cohesion Paradimaticization Fusion Variability Obligatorification Fixation

6.2. Grammaticalization: Lexical Items > Adpositions • Benjamin Fagard (2006:95):

Channel 1: Relational noun > Lexical preposition Channel 2: Noun > Genitive construction > Lexical preposition Channel 3: Adverb > Lexical preposition Channel 4: Verb > Past participle > Lexical preposition Channel 5: Verb > Present participle > Lexical preposition Channel 6: Verb > Serial verb > Coverb > Lexical preposition Channel 7: Adjective > Lexical preposition Channel 8: Collocation > Lexical preposition

Channel 1: Relational Noun > Lexical Preposition • Latin penes ‘in the possession of, in the house of’ (+ acc.) < endingless locative of a noun *pen-e/os- ‘interior’ (cf. Lat. penus ‘the innermost part of a house’, hence ‘food provisions’, Penātēs ‘deities of the household’); tenus ‘through, along’ (+ gen. or abl.) < noun *ten-e/os (cf. Latin tenus ‘cord’). • Romance languages: Old French lez ‘beside, along’ (from Latin latus ‘side’); French chez ‘by, at’ (from Latin *casīs, abl. pl. von casa ‘cabin’ > ‘house’). Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 49

• Celtic languages: Welsh achos ‘because’ < substantive achos ‘cause’; Welsh parth(ed) ‘towards, as regards’ < noun parth ‘part’ (< Latin partem); Welsh cylch ‘about’ < Latin circulus ‘circle’, etc.; Old Irish fíad ‘in the presence of’ (+ dat.) < substantive ‘presence’ (cf. Welsh gŵ ydd ‘presence’); Old Irish la ‘with, among’ < noun leth ‘side’. • Postpositions: Tocharian A pkänt, B pkante ‘without’ < substantive ‘obstacle’.

• [BODY PART > LOCATIVE PREPOSITION]: Modern Icelandic noun bak ‘back’ / preposition bak ‘behind, after’; Albanian, ballë ‘in front of’ (+ acc.) < ballë ‘forehead’; Hittite ištarna, ištarni ‘between, among, within’ < noun *stor-no- (cf. Greek στέρνον stérnon ‘breast, heart’, Old Church Slavic страна strana ‘side’ < *stor-nā); Ossetic сӕр sær ‘on, upon’ and раз raz, размӕ razmæ ‘before’ < nouns сӕр sær ‘head, top’ and раз raz ‘front, front side’.

• PIE *h2enti ‘in front of’, locative of a noun *h2ent- ‘face’ (cf. Hittite ḫ anza ‘face’ < PIE *h2ent-s), preposition in Greek ἀντί antí ‘for, instead of’ (+ gen.), Armenian ընդ ǝnd ‘for, instead of’ (+ gen.), ‘through’ (+ acc.), ‘from the side of’ (+ abl.), ‘with’ (+ dat.), Latin ante ‘(+ acc.). Channel 2: Noun > Genitive Construction > Lexical Preposition • Latin causā ‘on account of, for the sake of’ and grātiā ‘in favor of, on account of, for the sake of’ (+ gen.); Vedic Sanskrit, the preposition ágre ‘in front of’ (+ gen.) < substantive ágra- ‘tip’. Channel 3: Adverb > Lexical Preposition (124) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Γ 384 Περὶ δὲ Τρῳαὶ ἅλις ἦσαν. Perì dè Trōiaì hális ē̃san. around-ADV PCLE women of Troy-NOM.PL in droves-ADV were-IND.IMPERF.3PL ‘And round around in droves were the women of Troy’ (125) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Σ 453 Πᾶν δ’ ἦμαρ μάρναντο περὶ Σκαιῇσι πύλῃσιν. Pā̃n d’ ē̃mar márnanto perì Skaiē̃isi púlēisin. all-ACC.SG PCLE day-ACC.SG fought-IND.IMPERF.3PL around Scaean-DAT.PL gates-DAT.PL ‘All day long they fought around the Scaean gates.’ • Latin subtus ‘below, beneath, underneath’ (Cato, Varro) > Late Latin preposition subtus (+ acc.) > Romanian supt, Italian sotto, French sous, Old Spanish soto (‘under’ is in Spanish bajo < ‘low’). • Latin intus ‘inside’ > dialectal Italian ent(o) ‘in’; Old French enz still adverbial, but *de-intus > French preposition dans ‘in’. • Sanskrit purás ‘before’ > preposition (+ acc., abl. or loc.). • German nach ‘after’ (+ dat.) < adverb *nǣ hwō ‘near’ (cf. Old English ne̅ ah ‘near, close’); German wider ‘against’ (+ acc.) < adverb wieder ‘again’.

• [NOUN] > [ADVERB] > [PREPOSITION]: PIE locative *h2enti, adverb in Vedic Sanskrit ánti ‘before, near, facing’, cf. also Hittite ḫ anza ‘in front’ (adv.), ḫ anti ‘opposite, against, instead, apart’ (adv.), Cuneiform Luvian ḫ anti ‘against’ (adv.) > preposition (Greek, Armenian, Latin). Channel 4 and 5: Participial form > Lexical preposition • Romance preposition *verso (> Italian verso, French vers, Old Spanish vieso, Old Portuguese vesso ‘towards’) < Latin versus, from uertō ‘to turn’; cf. adverb (Plautus, Captiui, 368: utroque uorsum ‘in either direction’), accompanying prepositional groups (e.g. Cicero, Ad Familiares, 4, 12, 1: in Italiam uersus ‘towards Italy’), or postposition (e.g. Cicero, Ad Atticum, 16, 10, 1: Arpinum uersus ‘towards Arpinum’). • Italian, Spanish, Portuguese durante, French durant and English during, German während < Lat. *dūrāre ‘to last’ resp. Germ. währen ‘to last’. • Latin trāns ‘through’ (+ acc.), Umbrian traf ‘through’, Welsh tra ‘beyond’ < *ter- ‘to go through’ (cf. Latin intrāre ‘to enter’, Sanskrit tárati ‘to traverse, to cross’). Channel 6: Serial verb > Adposition • Cf. Chinese dao ‘to arrive’ (serial verb) > ‘to’ (allative adposition) or gen ‘to follow’ (serial verb) > ‘with’ (comitative adposition). 50 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

• Modern Indo-Aryan languages: postposition*lā̆ g-i is used with a locative meaning ‘towards, up to’ (allative) or with a more general meaning ‘for’, ‘for the sake of’ (beneficiary and dative) > Nepali lāi ‘acc.- dat. marker’ and Awadhi lai (Old lāgi) ‘up to, for’. (126) Early Awadhi (cf. Saksena 1937, 21971:227) barahī lāgi ‘for the bride-groom’ bride-groom for • Kellog (1893:88): *lā̆ g-i < Skr. lágati ‘to attach’ (cf. Hindi lagnā ‘to be attached to, to be joined to’, Marathi lāgnẹ ṃ ‘to touch, to hit, to agree, to happen’). Channel 7: Adjective > Adposition • French sauf, Italian salvo ‘safe’ (adjective) > ‘except, save, apart from’ (preposition). • Italian lungo ‘long’ (adjective) > ‘along’ (preposition). • Spanish bajo ‘low’ (adjective) > ‘under’ (preposition). • Old Irish al, ol ‘beyond’ (+ acc.) < adjective oll ‘full, vaste’ (cf. Old Latin ollus ‘that over there’, and compare ultra ‘beyond’) • Old Irish cen ‘without’ (+ acc.) < adjective *cen ‘other’ (cf. Cornish ken). • Albanian gjatë ‘along’ (+ dat.) and adjective ‘long’. • Cf. French sauf mon père ‘except my father’ < *‘my father being left save’; French sauf erreur ‘unless mistaken’ (not *sauve erreur). But French excepté ‘except’ (excepté mon père ‘except my father’, excepté ma mère or exceptée ma mère ‘except my mother’, mon père excepté ‘except my father’). Channel 8: Collocation > Adposition • Italian per via di ‘because of’, in mezzo a ‘in the middle of’, Spanish de bajo de ‘underneath’, a razón de ‘at the rate of’, Portuguese ao lado de ‘next to’, dentro de ‘inside, in’, Romanian cu excepţia ‘except for’, în faţa ‘in front of’, French à partir de ‘from’, au lieu de ‘instead’. • Welsh o flaen ‘in front of’, Russian в сторону v stóronu ‘in the direction of’ (+ gen.), Lithuanian abìpus ‘on both sides of’ (+ gen.), Albanian për shkak të ‘because of’ (+ gen.-dat.). • Postpositions: Hindi ke māre ‘because of’; Ossetic уӕлхъус uælxъus ‘by, near’ (< ‘over the ear’). • Ancient Greek ἐκποδών ekpodṓ n ‘far’ (adv.) and ‘far from’ (+ gen.) < ἐκ ποδῶν ek podō̃n ‘away from the feet’. • Latin erga ‘in front of, towards, concerning’ (+ acc.) < *ē rogā ‘from the direction’; Late Latin in gīrō ‘around’ (+ acc. or abl.) < ‘in circle’, de latus ‘beside’ (+ gen. or acc.) < ‘from the side’. • Ancient Greek ἔνδον éndon ‘inside, in’ (+ gen.) < *én dom ‘in the house’; Hittite andan? Observations • Hittite: ištarna vs. ištarni ‘between, among, within’ (< *stor-no- ‘breast, side’?), cf. aruna ‘to the sea’ vs. aruni ‘in the sea’). Adpositions and possessive relationships • Welsh: o flaen ‘in front of’, o’i flaen ‘in front of him’ (lit. ‘in his front’), o’i blaen ‘in front of her’ (lit. ‘in her front’), o’h blaen ‘in front of you’ (lit. ‘in your font’). (127) Modern Welsh (cf. King 1993:294-295) ar ei chyfer ‘for her’ for her-POSS.FEM.SG sake-FEM.SG (128) Modern Welsh (cf. King 1993:294-295) ar ei chyfer hi ‘for her’ for her-POSS.FEM.SG sake-FEM.SG of her-FEM.SG Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 51

• H. Craig Melchert (1984:124-125): Hittite katta ‘with’ vs. katti=šši ‘with him’ by analogy to pēdi=šši ‘in place of him’. (129) Hittite: KBo III 22 I 79 + KUB XXXVI 98b (Anittas inscription) [Pí]ram=mit kunnaz ešari. ‘Before me to the right he sits.’ (lit. ‘to my front on the right’) before=my-POSS to the right he sits-IND.PRS.3SG (130) Hittite: KUB XVII 1 I 32 Pēraš=šet GIŠzupari ḫ arzi. ‘Before him he holds a torch.’ (lit. ‘to his front’) before=his-POSS torch-ACC.SG he holds-IND.PRS.3SG (131) Romanian împotriva Mariei ‘against Mary’ against Mary-GEN.-DAT.SG (132) Romanian (cf. Maiden 2015:58) împotriva mea ‘against me’ (lit. ‘my against’) against mine-NOM.FEM.SG (133) Romanian cartea Mariei ‘Mary’s book’ book-NOM.FEM.SG Mary-GEN.-DAT.SG (134) Romanian cartea mea ‘Mary’s book’ book-NOM.FEM.SG my-NOM.FEM.SG • But Romanian pentru ea ‘for her’, cu tine ‘with you’, între noi ‘between us’. Summary noun

adjective adverb preposition verb coverb

more lexical more grammatical

6.3. Grammaticalization: Verbal Auxiliaries. Periphrastic Perfects

Language Structure Hittite • past participle neuter + eš- ‘to be’ • past participle neuter + ḫ ark- ‘to have’ Tocharian B • nes- ‘to be’ + past participle Classical Sanskrit • as- ‘to be’ + acc. of an abstract feminine noun • kr̥ - ‘to make’ + acc. of an abstract feminine noun Hindi • past participle + honā ‘to be’ Sogdian • past particle + x- ‘to be’ • past participle + δār- ‘to do’ Classical Armenian • past participle in -եալ -eal + եմ em ‘to be’ Modern Greek • έχω éxo ‘to have’ + active non-finite in -ει -ei Albanian • kam ‘to have’ + past participle French • être ‘to be’ + past participle • avoir ‘to have’ + past participle Welsh • wedi ‘after’ + verbal noun Breton • bezañ ‘to be’ + past participle • devoud ‘to have’ + past participle Swedish • har ‘to have’ + past participle German • sein ‘to be’ + past participle • haben ‘to have’ + past participle Old Church Slavic • past participle + быти byti ‘to be’ Lithuanian • bū́ ti ‘to be’+ active past participle 52 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

The Indo-Aryan Periphrastic Perfect (135) Sanskrit: Atharva-Veda XVIII, 2, 27 Asū́ n pitr̥ bhyò gamayā́ ṃ cakā́ ra. living breaths-ACC.PL fathers-DAT.PL cause to go-ACC.FEM.SG he made-IND.PERF.3SG ‘He [Death] caused the living breaths [of the corpse] to go to [join] the ancestors.’ h • Cf. Germanic weak preterite: Goth. hausida, German ich hörte, Engl. I heard ‘I heard’ < PIE root *d eh1- ‘to place, to do, to make’? The Middle Welsh Periphrastic Perfect (136) Welsh (cf. King 1993:169) Mae’n cymydog wedi gwerthu ei dŷ. is-IND.PRS.3SG neighbour-SG after selling-VERBAL NOUN his-MASC.SG house-SG ‘Our neighbour has sold his house’ (137) Middle Welsh: Lewis Glyn Cothi, Y Dospart VII, 10. I Huw Conwy, o Vryn Euryn 55-56 [15th century] Da oedd cyfion Huw Conwy, good was-IND.IMPERF.3SG ancestors-PL Huw Conwy-SG A da yw Huw wedi hwy. and good is-IND.PRS.3SG Huw-SG after them-PL ‘Good were the ancestors of Huw Conwy, and good is Huw after them.’ (138) Welsh (cf. King 1993:169) Mae’n cymydog yn gwerthu ei dŷ. is-IND.PRS.3SG neighbour-SG in selling-VERBAL NOUN his-MASC.SG house-SG ‘Our neighbour is selling his house’ 6.4. Grammaticalization: Verbal Auxiliaries. Periphrastic Futures

Language Structure Classical Sanskrit • nomen agentis in -tar- + as- ‘to be’ (dātāsmi ‘I will give’< *dātā (nom.sg. < *-tār) + asmi ‘I am giver’ Hindi • verb + suffix -gā < gata-, past participle of ‘to go’ Sogdian and Khwarezmian • verb + particle -kām (Khwarezmian k’m) < noun ‘wish’ Romance (except Romanian) • synthetic formation < infinitive + *habere ‘avoir’ (French chantera, Sp. cantará, Ital. canterà ‘will sing’) Romanian • voi (< ‘I want’) + infinitive (or dialectally mi-clause) Modern Greek • θα θa (< θέλω ἵνα θélō hína ‘I want that’) + perfective non- past or imperfective non-past Tosk Albanian • do (< ‘I want’) + conjunction të + conjunctive present Gheg Albanian • kam (< ‘I have’) + infinitive Slavic • bǫdǫ (< ‘I will be’) + infinitive (with Serbo-Croatian • ću or hòću (< ‘I want’) + infinitive or da-clause Polabian • auxiliary cą, 3e sg. ci (< ‘to want’) + infinitive (only for imperfective verbs) Old Saxon • skulan (< ‘I must’) + infinitive English • shall (< ‘I must’) + infinitive • will (< ‘I want’) + infinitive German • werden (< ‘to become’) + infinitive

The Classical Sanskrit Periphrastic Future

Paradigm Origin SG 1 dātāsmi *dātā+asmi (nom.sg.+ ‘I am’) SG 2 dātāsi *dātā+asi (nom.sg.+ ‘you are, sg.’) SG 3 dātā *dātā (nom.sg.) PL 1 dātāsmah ̣ *dātā+smah(nom.sg.+̣ ‘we are’) PL 2 dātāstha *dātā+stha (nom.sg.+ ‘you are, pl.’) PL 3 dātārah ̣ dātārah ̣ (nom. pl.) Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 53

(139) Sanskrit: Mahābhārata I, 88, 5 (cf. Gonda 1956:161) Satāṃ sakāśe patitāsi. virtuous-GEN.PL in presence of you will fall-IND.FUT.2SG ‘You will fall among virtuous men.’ 6.5. Grammaticalization: Verbal Auxiliaries. Periphrastic Presents

Language Structure Marathi • imperfective form of the verb + auxiliary āhe ‘to be’ Bengali • suffix -chi (e.g. kinchi ‘I am buying’) < *ach-i ‘to be’ Zazaki • auxiliary o / ā ‘to be’ + present indicative Italian • auxiliary stare ‘to be’ + gerund in -ndo (sta leggendo ‘he is reading’) • auxiliary stare ‘to be’ + a + infinitive (sta a leggere ‘he is reading’) Spanish • auxiliary estar ‘to be’ + gerund in -ndo (estoy hablando ‘I am talking’) Brazilian Portuguese • auxiliary estar ‘to be’ + gerund in -ndo (estou trabalhando ‘I am working’) European Portuguese • auxiliary estar ‘to be’ + a + infinitive (eu estou a trabalhar ‘I am working’) Old French • auxiliary estre ‘to be’ or aler ‘to go’ + present participle Modern English • auxiliary to be + form in -ing Modern Irish • auxiliary tá ‘to be’ + ag ‘at’ + verbal noun Modern Welsh • auxiliary bod ‘to be’ + yn ‘in’ + verbal noun

(140) Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad, Ε 873 Αἰεί τοι ῥίγιστα θεοὶ τετληότες εἰμέν. Aieí toi rhígista theoì tetlēótes eimén. always PCLE most terribly-ADV gods-NOM.PL suffering-PART.PERF.NOM.PL are-IND.PRS.1PL ‘We gods are continually suffering most terribly.’ (141) Ancient Greek: Plato, Protagoras, 350b Οὗτοί γε μαινόμενοί εἰσι. Hoũtoí ge mainómenoí eisi. these-NOM.PL PCLE becoming delirious-PART.PRS.NOM.PL are-IND.PRS.3PL ‘They are becoming delirious.’ (142) New Testament Greek: 2Cor. 9, 12 Ἡ διακονία τῆς λειτουργίας ταύτης οὐ μόνον Ηē diakoníā tē̃s leitourgíās taútēs ou mónon the-NOM.SG administration-NOM.SG of the-GEN.SG service-GEN.SG this-GEN.SG not only ἐστὶν προσαναπληροῦσα τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν ἁγίων, estìn prosanaplēroũsa tà husterḗmata tō̃n hagíōn, is-IND.PRS.3SG supplying-PART.PRS.NOM.SG the-ACC.PL failings-ACC.PL of the-GEN.PL saints-GEN.PL ἀλλὰ καὶ περισσεύουσα διὰ πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν allà kaì perisseúousa dià pollō̃n eukharistiō̃n but also abounding-PART.PRS. NOM.SG through many-GEN.PL thanksgivings-GEN.PL τῷ θεῷ. tō̃i theō̃i. to the-DAT.SG God-DAT.SG ‘For the administration of this service not only supplies the failings of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings to God.’ (143) Gothic: Wulfila’s New Testament, 2Cor. 9, 12 Andbahti þis gudjinassaus ni þatainei administration-NOM.SG of this-GEN.SG service-GEN.SG not only ist usfulljando gaidwa þize weihane, is-IND.PRS.3SG supplying-PART.PRS.NOM.SG failings-ACC.PL of the-GEN.PL saints-GEN.PL ak jah ufarassjando þairh managa awiliuda guda. but also abounding-PART.PRS. NOM.SG through many-ACC.PL thanksgivings-ACC.PL God-DAT.SG ‘For the administration of this service not only supplies the failings of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings to God.’ (144) Hindi (cf. McGregor 1972, 21986:18) Maiṁ bhārat meṁ rahtā hūṁ . ‘I live in India.’ I India in living am 54 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

6.6. Grammaticalization: Verbal Auxiliaries. Periphrastic Passives

Language Structure Hittite • auxiliary eš- ‘to be’ + passive participle in -ant- Hindi • auxiliary jānā ‘to go’ + perfective participle Kashmiri • auxiliary yun ‘to come’ + ablative form of the infinitive Persian • auxiliary šav-, šod/šav-, šud- ‘to become, to get’ + past participle Pashto • infinitive + auxiliary keg-, ked-ǝl- ‘to make, to do’ Balochi • past participle or infinitive + auxiliary bay- ‘to become’ Spanish • auxiliary ser ‘to be’ + past participle Italian • auxiliary essere ‘to be’ + past participle (stative) • auxiliary venire ‘to come’ or andare ‘to go’ + past participle (dynamic) French • auxiliary être ‘to be’ + past participle (unmarked) • auxiliary se faire ‘to make oneself, to get’ + infinitive (+animacy) Breton • auxiliary bezañ ‘to be’ + past participle Colloquial Welsh • auxiliary cael ‘to obtain, to get’ + possessive pronoun + verbal noun (‘I am seen’ < *‘I get my seeing’) Old English • auxiliary beon ‘to be’ + past participle (stative) • auxiliary weorðan ‘to become’ + past participle (dynamic) English • auxiliary be ‘to be’ + past participle (stative) • auxiliary get ‘to get’ + past participle (dynamic) German • auxiliary sein ‘to be’ + past participle (stative) • auxiliary werden ‘to become’ + past participle (dynamic) New Norwegian • auxiliary vera ‘to be’ + past participle (stative) • auxiliary bli, verta ‘to become’ + past participle (dynamic) • auxiliary få ‘to get’ + supine or past participle Lithuanian • auxiliary būti ‘to be’ + passive participles Old Church Slavic • auxiliary быти byti ‘to be’ + passive participles

(145) Colloquial Welsh (cf. Müller 1999:17) Cafodd y ffermwr ei ladd. got-IND.PST.3SG the farmer his killing ‘The farmer was / got killed.’ (lit. ‘the farmer got his killing’) 6.7. Grammaticalization: Verbal Auxiliaries. Observations • Cf. Old Bengali shu-ite ach-e, Middle Bengali shu-i ach-e, Early Modern Bengali shu-i=ch-e, Modern Bengali shu-cch-e ‘he is lying down’. • Romance future (e.g. French chantera, Sp. cantará, Ital. canterà ‘he will sing’) < infinitive + ‘to have’ [CANTARE + HABET]: (146) Portuguese Dar-ei. ‘I will give.’ will give-IND.FUT.1SG (147) Portuguese Dar-te-ei um livro. ‘I will give you a book.’ will give=you-SG=-IND.FUT.1SG a-SG book-SG

• Polish pisał-em ‘I have written (man, sg.)’, fem. pisała-m ‘I have written (woman, sg.)’, pl. pisali-śmy ‘we have written (men or women, pl.)’. (148) Modern French J’ai cassé la bouteille. I=have-IND.PRS.1SG broken the-FEM.SG bottle-FEM.SG ‘I have broken the bottle.’ (originally: ‘I have the bottle broken.’) (149) Modern French La bouteille, je l’ai cassée. the-FEM.SG bottle-FEM.SG I-SG it=have-IND.PRS.1SG broken-FEM.SG ‘The bottle, I have broken it.’ Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 55

6.8. Grammaticalization: Conclusion • Lyle Campbell (2001:117): ‘Grammaticalisation has no independent status of its own; it merely involves other kinds of changes and mechanisms of change which are well understood and are not limited to cases involving grammaticalization: sound change, semantic change, and reanalysis’. • Henning Andersen (2008:19 and 21): grammation = ‘a change by which an expression, through reanalysis, comes to carry grammatical content’ vs. regrammation = ‘a change by which a grammatical expression, through reanalysis, is ascribed different grammatical content’. • Frederik Newmeyer (2001:202-203): ‘We have examined the component parts of grammaticalization and found that they all are manifested independently... One obviously has the right to use the term ‘grammaticalization’ to describe the conjunction of certain types of historical changes that are manifested independently. No harm is done as long as the use of the term in such a way does not invite the conclusion that some dynamic is at work in grammaticalization that cannot be understood as a product of these historical changes.’ • Annette Rosenbach (2004:73): ‘Unidirectionality is taken to be the cornerstone of grammaticalization, and all success – and failure – seems to lie on its shoulders’.

7. Degrammaticalization • Muriel Norde (2010:126): ‘Degrammaticalization is a composite change whereby a gram in a specific context gains in autonomy or substance on more than one linguistic level (semantics, morphology, syntax, or phonology)’. (150) Old English: The Parker Chronicle Mss. A, fol. 10r (cf. Rosenbach 2002:178) þæs cyninges þegnas the-GEN.MASC.SG king-GEN.MASC.SG thanes-NOM.PL ‘the king’s thanes’ (a thane is a vassal) (151) English the Queen of England’ s numerous castles the Queen of England-FEM.SG CLIT. numerous castles-PL • Martin Haspelmath (2004:27): ‘By this I mean a change that leads from the endpoint to the starting point of a potential grammaticalization and also shows the same intermediate stages. For instance, a change from a case suffix to a free postposition with the intermediate stage of a postpositional clitic would be an antigrammaticalization’.

Grammaticalisation Degrammaticalisation Phonological attrition Phonological strengthening Morphologisation Demorphologisation Loss of syntactic autonomy Increase of syntactic autonomy Loss of semantic content Increase of semantic content

References Abaev, V. I., 1964. A Grammatical Sketch of Ossetic. Bloomington, The Hague. Adams, D.Q., 1988. Tocharian Historical Phonology and Morphology. New Haven. —, 2015. Tocharian B: A Grammar of Syntax and Word-Formation. Innsbruck. Adams, L., 1967. The Definite Article: Its Evolution in Late Latin and Its Usage in Old French. Dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Åfarlí, T. A., 1992. The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Agouraki, G., 1991. ‘A Modern Greek complementizer and its significance for universal grammar’. J. van de Koot (ed.).UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, p. 1-24. Aikhenvald, A.Y., 2003. ‘Evidentiality in typological perspective’. A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon (ed.). Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 1-31. Aikhenvald, A.Y., Dixon, R. M. W., 1998. ‘Dependencies between grammatical systems’. Language, 74, p. 56-80. —, 2006. Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford. Ambrazas, V., 2006. Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė. Vilnius. Ambrazas, V. (ed.), 1997. A Lithuanian Grammar (LG). Vilnius. Andersen, H., 2008. ‘Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change’. T. Eythórsson (ed.). Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 11-44. Andersen, P.K., 1980. ‘On the reconstruction of the syntax of comparison in PIE’. P. Ramat (ed.). Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Amsterdam, p. 225-236. 56 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

—, 1983. Word Order Typology and Comparative Constructions. Amsterdam. Arkadiev, P., 2014. ‚Case and word order in Lithuanian infinitival clauses revisited’. A. Holvoet, N. Nau (ed.). Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic. Amsterdam, p. 43-96. Asad, M., 2013. ‘A study of grammaticalization of the verb lǝg in Modern Maithili’. Journal of Language in India, 13/10, p.93-104. Asenova, P., 2002. Балканско езикознание Balkansko ezikoznanie. Veliko Tărnovo. Askedal, J. O., 1994. ‘Norwegian’. E. König, J. van der Auwera (ed.). The Germanic Languages. London, New York, p. 219-270. —, 2008. ‘Degrammaticalization’ versus typology: Reflections on a strained relationship’. T. Eythórsson (ed.). Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 45-78. Axel-Tober, K., 2007. Studies on Old High German Syntax: Left Sentence Periphery, Verb Placement and Verb- Second. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Barðdal, J., Smitherman, Th., Bjarnadóttir, V., Danesi, S., Jenset, G.B., McGillivray, B., 2012. ‘Reconstructing constructional semantics. The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian’. Studies in Language, 36/3, p. 511-547. Barrera-Vidal, A., 1975. ‘Quelques observations sur le système de la négation en français parlé’. Neusprachliche Mitteilungen, 28/2, p. 72-79. Barz, R. K., Diller, A.V.N., 1985. ‘Classifiers and standardisation: some South and South-East Asian comparisons’. D. Bradley (ed.). Papers in South-East Asian linguistics 9: Language Policy, Language Planning and Sociolinguistics in South-East Asia. Pacific Linguistics, A-67, p. 155-184. Bauer, A.H., 2014. Morphosyntax of the Noun Phrase in Hieroglyphic Luwian. Leiden. Bauer, B., 1995. The Emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French. Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Oxford. —, 2000. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin. —, 2008. ‘Residues as an aid in Internal Reconstruction’. J.E. Rasmussen, T. Olander (ed.). Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, Results and Problems. Copenhagen, p. 17-31. —, 2009. ‘Word order’. Ph. Baldi, P. Cuzzolin (ed.). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax: Part I. Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin, p. 241-316. Belloro, V. A., 2007. Spanish Clitic Doubling: A Study of the Syntax-Pragmatics Interface. Dissertation, New York. Bennett, C.E., 1910. Syntax of Early Latin. Vol. I. The Verb. Boston, Leipzig. Bentein, K., 2016. Verbal Periphrasis in Ancient Greek Have- und Be-Constructions. Oxford. Benveniste, E., 1929. Essai de grammaire sogdienne. Deuxième partie : Morphologie, syntaxe et glossaire. Paris. —, 1948. Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris. —, 1962. ‘Les substantifs en -ant- du hittite’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 57, p. 44-51. —, 1966-1974. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris, 2 volumes. Benvenuto, M. C. & Pompeo, F., 2012. ‘Expressions of predicative possession in Ancient Greek: ‘εἶναι plus dative’ and ‘εἶναι plus genitive’ constructions’. Aion, N.S. 1, p. 77-103. Berneker, E., 1900. Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen. Berlin. Biber, D., 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge (Mass.). Birnbaum, H., 1984. ‘Notes on syntactic change: cooccurrence vs. substitution, stability vs. permeability’. J. Fisiak (ed.). Historical Syntax. Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, p. 25-46. Blatt, F., 1957. ‘Latin influence on European syntax’. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 11, p. 33-69. Boas, F., 1947. ‘Kwakiutl grammar, with a glossary of the suffixes’. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 37, p. 201-377. Boeder, W., 1980. ‘Zur Rekonstruktion von Infinitivkonstruktionen im Indogermanischen‘. P. Ramat (ed.). Linguistic Reconstruction and Proto-Indo-European Syntax: Proceedings of the Colloquium of the ‘Indogermanische Gesellschaft’, University of Pavia, 6-7 September 1979. Amsterdam, p. 207-224. Boley, Jacqueline, 2004. Tmesis and Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Innsbruck. Borsley, R. D., Tallermann, M., Willis, D., 2007. The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge. Bortone, P., 2010. Greek Prepositions. From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford. Bortolussi, B., 1998. ‘Esse + datif et esse + génitif en latin’. A. Rouveret (ed.). « Être » et « avoir ». Syntaxe, sémantique, typologie. Saint-Denis, p. 67-94. —, 2006. ‘Le double accusatif dit de la possession inaliénable’. P. Brillet-Dubois, E. Parmentier (ed.). Φιλολογία. Mélanges offerts à Michel Casevitz. Lyon, p. 211-222. Bowern, C., 2008. ‘Syntactic change and syntactic borrowing in generative grammar’. G. Ferraresi, M. Goldbach (eds.). Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction. Amsterdam, p. 187-216. Boye, K., 2010. ‘Evidence for what? Evidentiality and Scope’. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF), 63(4), p. 290-307. Breivik, L.E., 1994. ‘On comparatives in English and other languages’. T. Swan, E. Mørck, D. Jansen Westvik (ed.). Language Change and Language Structure. Older Germanic Languages in a Comparative Perspective. Berlin, New York, p. 51-73. Breban, T. et alii, 2012. ‘Introduction: New reflections on the sources, outcomes, defining features and motivations of grammaticalization’. K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, T. Mortelmans (ed.). Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 1-35. Brosch, C., 2014. Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Raumgrammatik. Berlin, New York. Brovetto, C., 2002. ‘Spanish clauses without complementizers’. T. Satterfield, Ch. Tortora, D. Cresti (ed.). Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Sumposium on Romance Languages Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 57

(LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8-11 April 1999. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 33-46. Brown, S., 1999. The Syntax of Negation in Russian: A Minimalist Approach. Stanford. Bruno, C., 2011. ‘When stylistics is a matter of syntax: cognate accusatives in Ancient Greek’. Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner (ed.). Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden, p. 100-109. Bubeník, V., 1996. The Structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects. Delhi. —, 1998. A Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Bubeník, V., Hewson, J., 2006. From Case to Adposition. The Development of Configurational Syntax in the Indo- European Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Buchholz, O. Fiedler, W., 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig. Butt, J., Benjamin, C., 1988, 51994. A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish. London. Bybee, J. L., 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam. Çabej, E., 1968. “Meshari” i Gjon Buzukut (1555). Botim kritik. Tiranë, 2 volumes. Calboli, G., 2009. ‘Latin syntax and Greek’. Ph. Baldi, P. Cuzzolin (ed.). New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax 1. Syntax of the Sentence. Berlin, New York, p. 65-193. Campbell, L., 1993. “The explanation of syntactic change: a historical perspective’. J. van Marle (ed.). Historical Linguistics 1991. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 49-69. —, 1998. Historical Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh. —, 2001. ‘What’s wrong with grammaticalization?’. Language Sciences, 23/2-3, p. 113-161. Cardona, G., Suthar, B., 2003. ‘Gujarati’. G. Cardona, D. Jain (ed.). The Indo-Aryan Languages. London, p. 659-697. Chafe, W. L., 1959. ‘Internal reconstruction in Seneca’. Language, 35, p. 477-495. —, 1986. ‘Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing’. W.L. Chafe, J. Nichols (ed.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, p. 261-272. Chantraine, P., 1953-1958. Grammaire homérique. Paris. Chomsky, N., 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht. —, 1993. ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’. K. Hale, S. J. Keyser (ed.). The View from Building 20. Cambridge (Mass.), p. 1-52. —, 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge (Mass.). Christol, A., 1989. ‘Prolepse et syntaxe indo-européenne’. G. Calboli (ed.). Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Proceedins of the Third Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, Bologna, 1-5 April 1985. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 65-89. Cirrincione, A., 1968. Sintassi albanese degli antichi scrittori. Roma. Clary, T., 2014. ‘The unaccusative hypothesis an case selection of cognate complements in Latin’. Glotta, 90, p. 87- 104. Comrie, B., 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago. Cram, D., 1983. ‘The linguistic status of the proverb’. Cahiers de lexicologie, 43, p. 53-71. Creissels, D., 2006. ‘Encoding the distinction between location, source and destination: A typological study’. M. Hickmann, S. Robert (ed.). Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories. Philadelphia, p. 19- 28. Cristofaro, S., 1996. Aspetti sintattici e semantici delle frasi completive in greco antico. Firenze. —, 2003. Subordination. Oxford. —, 2008. ‘A constructional approach to complementation: evidence from Ancient Greek’. Linguistics, 46, p. 571-606. Croft, W., 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge. —, 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. London. —, 2001. Radical Construction Grammar, Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford. Crowley, T., 2002. Serial Verbs in Oceanic: A Descriptive Typology. Oxford. Dabir-Moghaddam, M., 1995. ‘Compound verbs in Persian’. Journal of Iranian Linguistics, 12/1, p. 2-46. Dahl, E., 2014. ‘On the semantics and syntax of the Latin ‘double dative’ construction’. N. Oettinger, Th. Steer (ed.). Das Nomen im Indogermanischen, Morphologie, Substantiv versus Adjektiv, Kollektivum, Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 14. bis 16. September 2011 in Erlangen. Wiesbaden, p. 32-50. Dahl, Ö., 1979. ‘Typology of sentence negation’. Linguistics, 17, p. 79-106. —, 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. —, 2010. ‘Typology of negation’. L. R. Horn (ed.). The Expression of Negation. Berlin, New York, p. 9-38. Dasgupta, P., 2003. ‘Bangla’. G. Cardona & Dh. Jain (ed.). The Indo-Aryan Languages. London, p. 351-390. De Bernardo Stempel, P., 1989. ‘Britannischer Komparativ und Konsonantenverdoppelung’. Indogermanische Forschungen, 94, p. 207-233. Delbrück, B., 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle. —, 1893-1900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Strassburg. Demiraj, Sh., 1986. Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe. Tiranë. —, 1993. Historische Grammatik der albanischen Sprache. Wien. Deshpande, M.M., 1980. Evolution of Syntactic Theory in Sanskrit Grammar: Syntax of the Sanskrit Infinitive -tum UN. Ann Arbor. Devine, A.M., Stephens, L.D., 2006. Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information. Oxford. Diewald, G. Smirnova, E., 2010. Evidentiality in German: Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization. Berlin/New York. —, 2010. ‘Evidentiality in European languages: the lexical-grammatical distinction’. G. Diewald, E. Smirnova (ed.), 58 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

2010. Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin, New York, p. 1-14. Di Meola, C., 2000. Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Präpositionen. Tübingen. Disterheft, D., 1981. ‘Remarks on the history of the Indo-European infinitive’. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2/1, p. 3- 34. —, 1985. ‘Non-final verbs in Hittite’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 97, p. 221-227. —, 1986. ‘Consecutives and serials in Indo-European’. D. Kastovsky, A. Szwedek (ed.). Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries in Honour of Jacek Fisiak. Vol. 1: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics. Berlin, p. 293-300. Dobrovský, J., 1809. Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der Böhmischen Sprache. Prag. Donaldson, B.C., 1984. Dutch Reference Grammar. Leiden. Dressler, W., 1969. ‘Eine textsyntaktische Regel der idg. Wortstellung’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 83, p. 1-25. —, 1971. ‘Über die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Syntax’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 85, p. 5-22. Dryer, M.S., 1988. ‘Universals of negative position’. M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, J. Wirth (ed.). Studies in Syntactic Typology. Amsterdam, p. 93-124. Dum-Tragut, J., 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam. Dunkel, G. E., 1985. ‘IE hortatory *ey, *eyte: Ved. éta...stávāma, Hitt. eḫ u=wa it, Hom. εἶ δ’ ἄγε’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 46, p. 47-79. —, 1994. ‘The IE directive’. G.E. Dunkel, G. Meyer, S. Scarlata, Chr. Seidel (ed.). Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch (Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Zürich 1992). Wiesbaden, p. 17-36. Efthimiou, E., 1990. ‘Na-clauses: the infinitival structure in Modern Greek’. Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics. Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, 10, p. 187-204. Eggs, F., 2006. Die Grammatik von als und wie. Tübingen. Ehrenfellner, U., 1996. ‘Zur semanto-syntaktischen Differenzierung von Final- und Konsekutivsatz’. Historische Sprachforschung, 109, p. 291-308. Ehret, W., 1907. Der Instrumentalis im Althochdeutschen. Heidelberg. Erdmann, O., 1882. Otfrids Evangelienbuch. Halle. Euler, W., 1999. ‘Das Supinum im Lateinischen und Baltisch-Slawischen und der altindische Infinitiv. Fragen zu deren indogermanischen Grundlagen’. Res Balticae, 5, p. 41-57. Eythórsson, Th., 2013. ‘Syntactic change’. S. Luraghi, C. Parodi (ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax. London, New York, p. 365-388. Faarlund, J. T., 1990. Syntactic change. Towards a Theory of Historical Syntax. Berlin, New York. —, 2004. The Syntax of Old Norse. Oxford. Fagard, B., 2006. ‘La grammaticalisation en question: du latin aux langues romanes modernes’. Modèles linguistiques, 27/1 (53), p. 91-100. Floricic, F., 2002. ‘La morphologie du vocatif : l’exemple du sarde’. Vox Romanica, 61, p. 151-177. Fornaciari, R., 11881, 21974. Sintassi italiana dell’uso moderno. Firenze. Forssman, B., 2001. Lettische Grammatik. Dettelbach. Foulet, L., 1919. Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. Paris. Fox, A., 1995. Linguistic Reconstruction, An Introduction to Theory and Method. Oxford. Fraenkel, E., 1928. Syntax der litauischen Kasus. Kaunas. Fraser, B., 2001. ‘Consider the lilies: prolepsis and the development of complementation’. Glotta, 77, p. 7-37. Friedman, V.A., 1980. ‘The study of Balkan admirativity: its history and development’. Balkanistica, 6, p. 7-30. —, 1982. ‘Admirativity in Bulgarian compared with Albanian and Turkish’. Bulgaria Past and Present, 1, p. 63-67. —, 1986. ‘Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian’. J. Nicholas, W. Chafe (ed.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, p. 168-187. —, 2003. ‘Evidentiality in the Balkans with special attention to Macedonian and Albanian’. A.Y. Aikhenvald, R.M.W. Dixon (ed.). Studies in Evidentiality. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 189- —, 2004. ‘The typology of Balkan evidentiality and areal linguistics’. O.M. Tomić (ed.). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 101-134. —, 2008. ‘Balkan object reduplication in areal and dialectological perspective’. D. Kallulli, L. Tasmowski (ed.). Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 35-63. —, 2014. ‘Enhancing national solidarity through the deployment of verbal categories. How the Albanian admirative participates in the construction of a reliable self and an unreliable other’. J. Nuckolls, M. Lev (ed.). Evidentiality in Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 21-56. Friedrich, J., 1959. Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg. Gabriel, Ch., Rinke, E., 2010. ‘Information packaging and the rise of clitic doubling in the history of Spanish’. G. Ferraresi, R. Lühr (ed.). Diachronic Studies on Information Structure: Language Acquisition and Change. Berlin, New York, p. 63-87. Gair, J. W., 1998. Studies in South Asian Linguistics: Sinhala and Other South Asian Languages. Oxford. —, 2003. ‘Sinhala’. G. Cardona, D. Jain (ed.). The Indo-Aryan Languages. London, p. 766-817. Gamillscheg, E., 1936. Zum romanischen Artikel und Possessivpronomen. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Sonderausgabe, XXVII, Band, Berlin. García Ramón, J.L., 1997a. ‘Infinitive im Indogermanischen? Zur Typologie der Infinitivbildungen und zu ihrer Entwicklung in den älteren indogermanischen Sprachen’. Incontri Linguistici, 20, p. 83-92. Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 59

Garrett, A., 1990a. The Syntax of Anatolian Pronominal Clitics. Dissertation Harvard, Cambridge (Mass.). —, 2012. ‘The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality’. D. Jonas, J. Whitman, A. Garrett (ed.). Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford, p. 52-72. Gāters, A., 1993. Lettische Syntax: Die Dainas. Frankfurt am Main. Geiger, W., 1916. Pāli Literatur und Sprache. Strassburg. Geniušienė, E., 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin, New York. Gerschevitch, I., 1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford. Gertz, J.E., 1982. The Nominative-Accusative Neuter Plural in Anatolian. Ph.D. Yale University. Gildemeister, J., 1882. Theodosius De Situ Terrae Sanctae im Ächten Text. Bonn. Gildersleeve, B.L., 31903. Latin Grammar. London. Girard, G., 1747. Les Vrais Principes de la Langue Françoise, ou La Parole réduite en Méthode, conformément aux Loix de l’Usage. Paris. Givón, T., 1975. ‘Serial verb and syntactic change: Niger-Congo’. Ch. N. Li (ed.). Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin, p. 47-112. —, 2000. ‘Internal Reconstruction: As Method, As Theory’. S. Gilda (ed.). Reconstructing Grammar: Grammaticalization and the Comparative Method. Amsterdam, p. 107-159. Godard, D., Marandin, J.-M., 2006. ‘Reinforcing negation: the case of Italian’. S. Müller (ed.). Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Varna. Stanford, p. 174-194. Godel, R., 1975. An Introduction to the Study of Classical Armenian. Wiesbaden. Gonda, J., 1956. ‘On nominatives joining or ‘replacing’ vocatives’. Lingua, 6, p. 89-104 = 1975. Selected Studies, vol. I. Indo-European Linguistics. Leiden, p. 11-26. —, 1956. ‘A critical survey of the publications on the periphrastic future in Sanskrit’. Lingua, 6, p. 158-179. —, 1958. ‘On the so-called proleptic accusative in Greek’. ME, 1/11, p. 117-122 = 1975. Selected Studies, vol. I. Indo- European Linguistics. Leiden, p. 82-88. Greenberg, J. H., 1957. ‘The nature and uses of linguistic typologies’. International Journal of American Linguistics, 23/2, p. 68-77 = 1990, p. 26-39. —, 1966. ‘Some Universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’. J. H. Greenberg (ed.). Universals of language. Cambridge, p. 73-113 = 1990: 40-70. —, 1990. On Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg. K. Denning, S. Kemmer (ed.), Stanford. Greenberg, M.L., 2006. A Short Reference Grammar of Standard Slovene. Chapel Hill. Grošelj, R., 2014. ‘The supine and the supine clause in South Slavic languages’. Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 59/3, p. 301- 324. Haan, F. de, 2009. ‘Evidentiality and epistemic modality: setting boundaries’. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 18, p. 83-101. Hackstein, O., 2003. ‘Apposition and word-order typology in Indo-European’. B. Bauer, G.-J. Pinault (ed.). Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Berlin, p. 131-152. —, 2004. ‘Zur Entwicklung alter Präsentien und Perfekta zu Konjunktiv- und Futurformen in einigen altindogermanischen Sprachen’. Th. Poschenrieder (ed.). Die Indogermanistik und ihre Anrainer. Dritte Tagung der Vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaftler der Neuen Länder, stattgehabt an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität zu Greifswald in Pommern am 19. und 20. Mai 2000. Innsbruck, p. 81-113. —, 2010. Apposition and Nominal Classification in Indo-European and beyond. Wien. Hanssen, F., 1913. Gramática histórica de la lengua castellana. Halle. Harris, A.C., Campbell, L., 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge. Haspelmath, M., 1998. ‘The semantic development of old presents, new futures and subjunctives without grammaticalization’. Diachronica, 15/1, p. 29-62. —, 2004. ‘On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization’. O. Fischer, M. Norde, H. Perridon (ed.). Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam, p. 17-44. Haspelmath, M., Buchholz, O., 1998. ‘Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe’. J. van der Auwera, D. P. Ó. Baoill (ed.). Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New York, p. 277-334. Haspelmath, M. König, E., Österreicher, W., Raible, W. (ed.), 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Berlin, De Gruyter, II. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D., Comrie, B. (ed.), 2005. The Word Atlas of Language Structures Online. Oxford. Haudry, J., 1968. ‘Les emplois doubles du datif et la fonction du datif indo-européen’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 63, p. 141-159. —, 1973. ‘Parataxe et hypotaxe dans la phrase latine’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 68, p. 147-186. Haugen, E., 1982. Scandinavian Language Structures. A Comparative Historical Survey. Minneapolis. Hawkins, J.A., 1983. Word Order Universals. New York. Heine, B., Kuteva, T., 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge. Hemon, R., 1975, 21984. A Historical Morphology and Syntax of Breton. Dublin. Herrity, P., 2000. Slovene: A Comprehensive Grammar. London. Hettrich, H., 1987. ‘Zur Entwicklung der Finalsätze altindogermanischer Sprachen’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 100, p. 219-237. —, 1984. ‘Zur historischen Syntax der Nomina Actionis im Rgveda: ‘Der doppelte Dativ’’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 43, p. 55-106. —, 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin. —, 2007. Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda. Berlin. Hewson, J., Bubeník, V., 2006. From Case to Adposition. The Development of Configurational Syntax in Indo- 60 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

European Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Hill, V., 2013. ‘The emergence of the Romanian supine’. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 3/2, p. 230-271. —, 2014. Vocatives: How Syntax meets with Pragmatics. Leiden. Hinüber, O von, 1968. Studien zur Kasussyntax des Pāli, besonders des Vinaya-Pitạ ka. München. Höche, S., 2009. Cognate Object Constructions in English: A Cognitive-Linguistic Account. Tübingen. Hock, H. H., 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin, New York. —, 2002. ‘Vedic éta...stávāma: Subordinate, coordinate, or what?’. M. Southern (ed.). Indo-European Perspectives. JIES Monograph 42, Washington, p. 89-102. Hoenigswald, H. M., 1944. ‘Internal reconstruction’. Studies in Linguistics, 2, p. 78-87. Hoffman, Ch., 1989. Romanian Reference Grammar. Washington. Hoffner, H.A., Melchert, H.C., 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Winoka Lake, Indiana. Holland, G., 1980. Problems of Word Order Change in Selected Indo-European Languages. Dissertation Berkeley. Holmes, Ph., Hinchliffe, I., 1997. Swedish: An Essential Grammar. London. Holton, D., Mackridge, Philippaki-Warburton, 1997. Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London. Holvoet, A., 2007. Mood and Modality in Baltic. Kraków. Hopper, P. J., Traugott, E. C., 1993, 22003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge. Humboldt, W. von, 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues. Berlin. Isačenko, A. V., 1974. ‘On “have” and “be” languages. A typological sketch’. M. S. Flier (ed.). Slavic Forum essays in linguistics and literature. La Haye, Paris, p. 43-77. Jacobi, H., 1899. ‘Über des periphrastische perfekt im Sanskrit’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 35, p. 578-587. Jakobson, R., 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Russian Language Project, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, Harvard University = L. Waugh, M. Monville-Burston (ed.), 1990. On Language: Roman Jakobson. Cambridge, Mass., p. 386-392. Jamison, S.W., 1988. ‘Vāyav Indraśca revisited’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 49, p. 13-59. Janda, R.D., Joseph, B.D., 2003. ‘On language, change, and language change ‒ or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics’. B.D. Joseph, R.D. Janda (ed.), 2003, p. 3-180. Jeffers, R.J., 1975. ‘Remarks on Indo-European infinitives’. Language, 51(1), p. 133-148. —, 1976. ‘Syntactic change and syntactic reconstruction’. W.M. Christie Jr. (ed.). Current Progress in Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam, p. 1-15. Jenner, H., 1904. A Handbook of the Cornish Language, chiefly in its Latest Stage with some Account of its History and Literature. London. Jensen, H., 1959. Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg. Jespersen, O., 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. København. —, 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London. —, 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Copenhagen. Jones, M. A., 1988. ‘Cognate objects and the case filter’. Journal of Linguistics, 24, p. 89-111. Jordán Cólera, C., 2004. Celtibérico. Zaragoza. Joseph, B.D., 1981. ‘On the synchrony and diachrony of Modern Greek να’. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 7, p. 139-154. —, 1990. ‘On arguing for serial verbs (with particular reference to Modern Greek)’. B. Joseph, A. Zwicky (ed.). When Verbs Collide: Papers from the Ohio State Mini-Conference on Serial Verbs. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics, 39, p. 77-90. —, 1999. ‘Romanian and the Balkans: Some Comparative Perspectives’. S. Embleton, J. Joseph, H.j. Niederehe (ed.). The Emergence of the Modern Language Sciences. Studies on the Transition from Historical-Comparative to Structural Linguistics in Honour of E. F. K. Korner. Volume 2: Methodological Perspectives and Applications. Amsterdam, p. 218-235. —, 2001. ‘On an oddity in the development of weak pronouns in deictic expressions in the languages of the Balkans’. D. Dyer, V. Friedman (ed.). Of All the Slavs my Favorites. In Honor of Howard I. Aronson on the Occasion of his 66th Birthday. Special Issue of Indiana Slavic Studies, 12, p. 251-267. Joseph, B. D., Janda, R.D. (ed.), 2003. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford. Kachru, Y., 2006. Hindi. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Kagan, O., 2007. ‘Property-denoting NPs and Non-Canonical Genitive Case’. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT), 17, p. 148-165. —, 2013. Semantics of Genitive Objects in Russian. A Study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case. Dordrecht. Kahn, Ch. H., 1973. The Greek Verb ‘to be’ and the Concept of Being. Dordrecht. Kakati, B., 1941. Assamese, Its Formation and Development. Gauhati (Assam). Kallulli, D., Tasmowski, L. (ed.), 2008. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Kallulli, D., Tasmowski, L., 2008a. ‘Clitic doubling, core syntax and the interfaces’. D. Kallulli, L. Tasmowski (ed.), 2008. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 1-32. Karst. J., 1901. Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen. Strassburg. Kayne, R., 1975. French Syntax. The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge (Mass.). Kellogg, S. H., 1893. A Grammar of the Hindi Language, in which are treated the High Hindi, Braj, and the Eastern Hindi of the Ramayana of Tulsidas, also the colloquial, dialects of Rajputana, Kumaon, Avadh, Riwa, Bhojpur, Magadha, Maithila. London, Calcutta. Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 61

Kent, R., 1953. Old Persian, Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, Connecticut. Keydana, G., 2013. Infinitive im R̥ gveda: Formen, Function, Diachronie. Leiden. Kilarski, M., 2013. Nominal Classification: A History of its Study from the Classical Period to the Present. Amsterdam. King, G., 1993. Modern Welsh: A Comprehensive Grammar. London, New York. King, R., 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Klein, J., 1991. ‘Syntactic and discourse correlates of verb-initial sentences in the Rig-veda’. H.H. Hock (ed.). Studies in Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi, p. 123-143. Knott, E., 1936. Togail Bruidne Da Derga. Dublin. Kortlandt, F., 1990. ‘Old Prussian infinitives in -ton and -twey’. B. Metuzale-Kangere, H.D. Rinholm (ed.). Symposium Balticum. A Festschrift to honour Professor Velta Ruķe-Draviņa. Hamburg, p. 213-218. Kosta, P., 2001. ‘Zum Einfluß der deutschen Syntax auf die Wortstellung im Sorbischen (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Niedersorbischen)’. G. Hassler (ed.). Sprachvergleich und Sprachkontakt. Münster, p. 101- 114. Krause, W., 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. München. Krause, W., Thomas, W., 1960. Tocharisches Elementarbuch. 2 volumes, Heidelberg. Kroll, W., 1909. ‘Anfangsstellung des Verbums im Lateinischen’. Glotta, 9, p. 112-123. Kulikov, L., 2006. ‘Case systems in a diachronic perspective. A typological sketch’. L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, P. de Swart (ed.). Case, Valency and Transitivity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 23-47. Kulneff-Eriksson, K., 1999. On ‘Have’ in in Ancient Greek: An Investigation on ἔχω and the Construction εἶναι with the Dative as expressions for ‘Have’. Lund. Kurylowicz, J., 1964. ‘On the methods of internal reconstruction’. H. G. Lunt (ed.). Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague, p. 10-36. —, 1965. ‘The evolution of grammatical categories’. Diogenes, 51, p. 55-71, reprinted in 1975. Esquisses linguistiques II. München, p. 38-54. —, 1973. ‘Internal reconstruction’. T. A. Sebeok (ed.). Current Trends in Linguistics, XI, The Hague, p. 63-92. Kuteva, T., 2001. Auxiliation. An Enquiry into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford. Langacker, R., 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’. C. Li (ed.). Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, p. 57-139. —, 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford. Lass, R., 1980. On Explaining Language Change. Cambridge. Lazard, G., 1992. A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Costa Mesa, New York. Ledgeway, A., 2012. From Latin to Romance, Morphological Typology and Change. Oxford. Le Goffic, P., Lab, F., 2001. ‘Le présent « pro futuro »’. P. Le Goffic (ed.). Le présent en français. Paris, p. 77-98. Lehmann, Ch., 1985. ‘Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change’. Lingua e Stile, 20, p. 303- 318. —, 2002. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 2nd edition (1st edition 1982), Erfurt. Lehmann, W., 1973. ‘A structural principle of language and its implications’. Language, 49, p. 47-66. Lenerz, J., 1985. ‘Diachronic syntax: verb position and comp in German’. J. Toman (ed.). Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht, p. 103-132. Lewis, H., 1990. Handbuch des Mittelkornischen. Innsbruck. Lewis, H., Pedersen, H., 1961. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. Göttingen. Lewis, H., Piette, J. R. F., 1990. Handbuch des Mittelbretonischen. Innsbruck. Li, Ch. N., Thompson, S. A., 1973. ‘Serial verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese’. C. Corum et al. (ed.). You Take the High Node and I’ll take the Low Node, Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival. Chicago, p. 96-103. Lightfoot, D. W., 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge. Lindsay, W.M., 1907, 21936. Syntax of Plautus. New York. Lockwood, W.B., 1968. Historical German Syntax. Oxford. Luraghi, S., 1990. Old Hittite Sentence Structure. London. —, 1993. ‘Verb serialization and word order: evidence from Hittite’. H. Aertsen, R.J. Jeffers (ed.). Historical Linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam, p. 267-281. —, 1993. ‘La modificazione nominale in anatolico’. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 78/2, p. 144-166. —, 1995. ‘The pragmatics of verb initial sentences in some ancient Indo-European languages’. P. A. Downing, M. Noonan (ed.). Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 355-386. —, 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: the Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. Amsterdam. Mac Coinnigh, M. 2012. ‘Syntactic structures in Irish-language proverbs’. Proverbium: Yearbook of International Proverb Scholarship, 29, p. 95-136. Mahajan, A., 2000. ‘Relative asymmetries and Hindi correlatives’. Alexiadou, A. (ed.). The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam, p. 201-230. Mahootian, Sh., 1997. Persian. London. Maiden, M., Robustelli, C, 2000, 22007. A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian. London, New York. Maiden, M., 2006. ‘On Romanian imperatives’. Philologica Jassyensia, II, 1, p. 47-59. —, 2015. ‘Le roumain: présentation grammaticale’. Lalies, 35, p. 7-88. Maling, J., 2009. ‘The case tier. A hierarchical approach to morphological case’. A. Malchukov & A. Specner (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford, p. 72-87. Mardale, A., 2007. ‘On the use of the definite article with prepositions in Romanian’. ASJU, 41/2, p. 201-208. Marušič, F., 2007. ‘Slovenian clitics have no unique syntactic position’. A. Antonenko, J. Bailyn, Ch. Bethin (ed.). Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. Ann Arbor, p. 266-281. Masica, C.P., 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge. 62 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

Massam, D., 1990. ‘Cognate objects as thematic objects’. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), p. 161-190. Matthews, P. H., 2007. Syntactic Relations: A Critical Survey. Cambridge. Matsumoto, M. 1996. ‘The syntax and semantics of the cognate object construction’. English Linguistics, 13, p. 199- 220. Mayerhofer, M., 1951. Handbuch des Pāli. Einführung in das sprachwissenschaftliche Studium des Mittelindischen. I. Teil: Grammatik, II. Teil: Texte und Glossar. Heidelberg. McCone, K., 2000. Echtrae Chonnlai and the Beginnings of Vernacular Narrative Writing in Ireland: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Notes, Bibliography and Vocabulary. Maynooth. —, 2005. L’irlandese antico e la sua preistoria. Edizione italiana e traduzione dal gaelico a cura di E. Roma, Alessandria. McGregor,, R.S., 1972, 21986. Outline of Hindi Grammar. Oxford. McMahon, A., 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge. Meillet, A., 1912. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’. Scientia, 12, p. 384-400 = 1922, p. 130-148. —, 1922. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris. —, 1922. ‘L’emploi du duel chez Homère et l’élimination du duel’. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 22, p. 145-164. —, 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Wien, 2nd edition. Melazzo, L., 1997. ‘Sulla possibilità di coordinazione di vocativo e nominativo in greco antico’. E. Banfi (ed.). Studi di Linguistica Greca. Milano, p. 143-159. Melchert, H.C., 1984. Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Leiden, Boston. —, 2011. ‘The PIE Collective Plural and the “τὰ ζῷα τρέχει rule”’. Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner (ed.). Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden, p. 395-400. —, 2012. ‘Dative-Locative objects of infinitives in Anatolian’. Historische Sprachforschung, 125, p. 242-247. Meunier, F., 2015. Recherches sur le génitif en tokharien. Paris, EPHE dissertation. Meyer, K.H., 1944. Altkirchenslavische Studien II: Das Supinum. Eine syntaktische Untersuchung. Halle. Miklosich, F., 1862. ‘Die slavischen Elemente im Rumänischen’. Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 12, p. 1-70. Miller, T., 1890. The Old English Version of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. London. Milner, J.-C., 1980. ‘La prolepse en grec ancien’. Lalies, 1, p. 39-52. Milroy, J., 1992. Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford. Mladenov, S., 1929. Geschichte der bulgarischen Sprache. Berlin, Leipzig. Mohanan, T., 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford. Monro, D. B., 1891. Homeric Grammar. Oxford. Morris-Jones, J., 1913. A Welsh Grammar Historical and Comparative. Oxford. Müller, N., 1999. Agent in Early Welsh and Early Irish. Oxford. Nakajima, H., 2006. ‘Adverbial cognate objects’. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(4), p. 674-684. Napoli, D.J., Nespor, M., 1986. ‘Comparative structures in Italian’. Language, 62/3, p. 622-653. Newmark, L., 1982. Standard Albanian. A Reference Grammar for Students. Stanford. Newmeyer, F. J., 2001. ‘Deconstructing grammaticalization’. L. Campbell, R. D. Janda (ed.). ‘Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment’. Language Sciences, 23/2-3, p. 187-230. Norde, M., 2001. ‘Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change’. Language Sciences, 23, p. 231-264. —, 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford. —, 2010. ‘Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies’. K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, E. König (ed.). Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 123-150. —, 2012. ‘Lehmann’s parameters revisited’. K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, T. Mortelmans (ed.). Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 73-109. Nørgård-Sørensen, J., Heltoft, L., Schøsler, L., 2011. Connecting Grammaticalisation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Oberlies, Th., 2001. Pāli. A Grammar of the Language of the Theravāda Tipitạ ka. Berlin, New York. —, 2003. A Grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Berlin, New York. Ochs, E., 1979. ‘Planned and unplanned discourse’. T. Givón (ed.). Discourse and Analysis. New York, p. 51-80. O’Donnell, R. C., 1974. ‘Syntactic differences between speech and writing’. American Speech, 49, p. 102-110. O’Rahilly, C., 1970. Táin Bó Cúailnge from the Book of Leinster. Dublin. O’Siadhail, M., 1989. Modern Irish. Grammatical Structure and Dialectal Variation. Cambridge. Oyelaran, O. O., 1982. ‘On the scope of the serial verb construction in Yoruba’. Studies in African Linguistics, 13/2, August 1982, p. 109-146. Palionis, J., 1974. ‘Supino vartojimas XVI-XVIIa. lietuvių rašto paminkluose’. Baltistica, 10/2, p. 143-148. Pană Dindelegan, G., 2013. The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford. —, 2016. The Syntax of Old Romanian. Oxford. Panagl, O., 1973. ‘Präsuppositionen und die Syntax der lateinischen Komparation’. Salzburger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 1, p. 361-375. —, 1985. ‘Das lateinische Supinum: Geschichte und Funktion einer grammatischen Kategorie’. B. Schlerath, V. Rittner (ed.). Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Wiesbaden, p. 324-339. Partee, B.H., Borschev, V., 2007. ‘Existential sentences, be, and the genitive of negation in Russian’. I. Comorovski, K. von Heusinger (ed.). Existence: Semantics and Syntax. Dordrecht, p. 147-190. Paul, H., 1880, 21886. Principien der sprachgeschichte. Halle. Petit, D., 2010. ‘On presentative particles in the Baltic languages’. N. Nau, N. Ostrowski (ed.). Particles and Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 63

Connectives in Baltic. Vilnius, p. 151-170. —, 2012. ‘Lectures de la linguistique indo-européenne du XIXe siècle’. Lalies, 32, p. 7-140. Pinault, G.-J., 2008. Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. Leuven, Paris. Pinkster, H., 2015. Oxford Latin Syntax. Part One: The Simple Clause. Oxford. Pisani, V., 1938. Paleontologia Linguistica. Caligari. Platt, A., 1909. ‘On τε etc. with vocatives’. The Classical Review, 23, p. 105-106. Plungian, V.A., 2010. ‘Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview’. G. Diewald, E. Smirnova (ed.), 2010. Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin, New York, p. 15-58. Poletto, C., 2014. Word Order in Old Italian. Oxford. Poppe, E., 1996. ‘Convergence and divergence: the emergence of a ‘future’ in the British languages’. Transactions of the Philological Society, 94, p. 119-160. Pořak, J., 1967. Vývoj infinitivních vět v češtině. Praha. Press, I., 1986. A Grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin, New York. Priestly, T.M.S., 1993. ‘Slovenian’. B. Comrie, G.C. Corbett (ed.). The Slavonic Languages. London, New York, p. 388-451. Rasmussen, J.E., Olander, T. (ed.), 2008. Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, Results and Problems. Copenhagen. Reichelt, H., 1909. Awestisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg. Renou, L., 1938. ‘Le suffixe védique -tr̥ - et les origines du futur périphrastique’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 39, p. 103-132. —, 1952. Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon, Paris. Ressuli, N., 1985. Grammatica albanese. Bologna. Ringe, D., 2005. ‘Internal reconstruction’. B. D. Joseph, R. D. Janda (ed.). The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford, p. 244-261. Rix, H., 2002. Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Heidelberg. Rizzi, L., 1986. ‘Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro’. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, p. 501-557. Roberts, I., Roussou, A., 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge. Ronelle, A., 2006. Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, A Grammar with Sociolinguistic Commentary. Madison, Wisconsin. Rose, F., 2009. ‘The origins of serialization’. Studies in Language, 33(3), p. 644-684. Rosenbach, A., 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin, New York. —, 2004. ‘The English s-genitive. A case of degrammaticalization?’. O. Fischer, M. Norde, H. Perridon (ed.). Up and Down the Cline — The Nature of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 73sq. Rosenkvist, H., 2010. ‘A case of degrammaticalization in northern Swedish’. A. Breitbarth, Ch. Lucas, Sh. Watts, D. Willis (ed.). Continuity and Change in Grammar. Amsterdam, p. 303-320. Rothe, W., 1957. Einführung in die historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Rumänischen. Halle. Rouchota, V., 1991. ‘On the interpretation of Na-clauses in Modern Greek: A relevance theoretic approach’. J. van de Koot (ed.).UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, p. 255-277. Rouveret, A., 1994. Syntaxe du gallois. Principes généraux et typologie. Paris. Rowlett, P., 2007. The Syntax of French. Cambridge. Rubin, A., 1978. A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences between Oral and Written Language. Boston. Russell, P., 1995, 22014. An Introduction to the Celtic Languages. London. Russo, J., 1983. ‘The Poetics of the Ancient Greek Proverbs’. Journal of Folklore Research, vol. 20, n° 2/3, p. 121- 130. Rydén, M., 1997. ‘On the panchronic core meaning of the English progressive’. T. Nevalainen, L. Kahlas-Tarkka (ed.). To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki, p. 419- 429. Sackle, C., 2003. ‘Panjabi’. G. Cardona, D. Jain (ed.). The Indo-Aryan Languages. London, p. 581-621. Sakayan, D., 2012. Western Armenian for the English-Speaking World. A Contrastive Approach. Yerevan. Saksena, B., 1937, 21971. Evolution of Awadhi (a Branch of Hindi). Delhi. Sandfeld, K., 1930. Linguistique balkanique: problèmes et résultats. Paris. Sapir, E., 1921. Language, An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York. Sasahara, K., 2014. ‘Die Rahmenkonstruktion im obersorbischen Hauptsatz. Ein Vergleich mit dem Deutschen’. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 40/1, p. 51-64. Sasse, H., 1987. ‘The thetic-categorical distinction revisited’. Linguistics, 25, p. 511-580. Saussure, F. de, 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris, 1962, 6th edition. Sauzet, P., 1989. « Topicalisation et prolepse en occitan ». Revue des langues romanes, 93/2, p. 235-273. Scala, A., 2009. ‘A proposito di armeno e ergatività’. Atti del sodalizio glottologico milanese, 1-2, p. 166-181. Scatton, E.A., 1983. A Reference Grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, Ohio. Schaller, H., 1970. ‘Die syntaktische Verwendung der Demonstrativpartikeln in den südslavischen Sprachen’. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie, 7, p. 141-149. —, 1975. Die Balkansprachen. Eine Einführung in die Balkanphilologie. Heidelberg. Schlegel, A.W. von, 1818. Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales. Paris. Schlegel, F. von, 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg. Schleicher, A., 1850. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht. Bonn. —, 1856. Litauische Grammatik. Praha. 64 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

—, 1861-1862. Compendium der vergleichenden grammatik der indogermanischen sprachen. Weimar. Schmalstieg, W.R., 1974. An Old Prussian Grammar: The Phonology and Morphology of the Three Catechisms. Philadelphy. Schmitt, R., 1981, 22007. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen. Innsbruck. Schokker, G.H., 1969-1970. ‘The jānā-passive in the NIA languages’. Indo-Iranian Journal, 12, p. 1-23. Scholz, F., 1985. ‘Der Verlust des Neutrums im Baltischen und seine Folgen’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 98, p. 269-279. Schrodt, R., 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Syntax. Tübingen. Schuster-Šewc, H., 1967. Sorbische Sprachdenkmäler. Bautzen. Schwentner, E., 1922. Die Wortfolge im Litauischen. Heidelberg. Schwyzer, E., 1939-1950. Griechische Grammatik. 2 volumes, München. Sebba, M., 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs. An Investigation into Serialisation in Sranan and other languages. Amsterdam. Sen, S., 1958. ‘The position of the negation in Bengali’. Indian Linguistics, 19, p. 100-102. Senn, A., 1949. ‘Verbal aspects in Germanic, Slavic and Baltic’. Language, 25, p. 402-409. Sensini, M., Roncoroni, F., 1990. La grammatica della lingua italiana. Milano. Sgall, P., 1958. ‘Die Infinitive im R̥ gveda’. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et Historica, 2, p. 137-268. Shapiro, M. C., 1987. ‘Hindi lagnā: A study in semantic change’. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 107/3, p. 401-408. —, 2003. ‘Hindi’. G. Cardona, D. Jain (ed.). The Indo-Aryan Languages. London, p. 250-285. Sharpe, R., 2009. ‘Claf Abercuawg and the voice of Llywarch Hen’. Studia Celtica, 43, p. 95-121. Siewierska, A., 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistics Analysis. Beckenham, Sidney. —, 1988. ‘The passive in Slavic’. M. Shibatani (ed.). Passive and Voice. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 243-289. Simrock, K.J., 1846. Die deutschen Sprichwörter gesammelt. Frankfurt-am-Main. Sims-Williams, N., 1986. ‘Sogdian kw and Slavonic ku’. Peredneaziatskij Sbornik, 4, p. 116-121. —, 1989. ‘Sogdian’. R. Schmitt (ed.). Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden, p. 173-192. Skjærvø, P.O., 2009a. ‘Old Iranian’. G.Windfuhr (ed.). The Iranian Languages. London, New York, p. 43-195. Skjærvø, P.O., 2009b. ‘Middle West Iranian’. G.Windfuhr (ed.). The Iranian Languages. London, New York, p. 196- 278. Slade, B., 2013. ‘Question particles and relative clauses in the history of Sinhala, with comparison to Early and Modern Dravidian’. S.-F. Chen, B. Slade (ed.). Grammatica et Verba / Glamor and Verve, Studies in South Asian, Historical and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday. Ann Arbor, New York, p. 245-268. Slomanson, P., 2006. ‘Sri Lanka Malay morphosyntax: Lankan or Malay?’. A. Deumert, S. Durrleman (ed). Structure and Variation in Language Contact. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 135-158. Small, G.W., 1923. The Comparison of Inequality: The Semantics and Syntax of the Comparative in English. Baltimore. Smirnova, A., 2013. ‘Evidentiality in Bulgarian: temporality, epistemic modality and information source’. Journal of Semantics, 30(4), p. 479-532. Smyth, H. W., 1920. Greek Grammar. Harvard. Sornicola, R., 1994. ‘On word-order variability. A study from a corpus of Italian’. Lingua e stile, 29/1, p. 25-57. Spevak, O., 2010. Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Speyer, J. S., 1896. Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax. Strassburg. Squartini, M., 2004. ‘Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance’. Lingua, 114/7, p. 873-889. Stan, C., 2014. ‘Nominalized structures in Old Romanian’. Linguistica Atlantica, 33/2, p. 110-122. Stassen, L., 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford. Statha-Halikas, H., 1979. ‘How not to tell a passive: the case of Old Persian manā krtam reconsidered’. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 5, p. 350-361. Steenwijk, H., 2003. ‘The use of the supine in Lower Sorbian’. J. Schaeken, P. Houtzagers, J. Kalsbeek (ed.). Dutch Contributions to the Thirteenth International Congress of Slavists, Ljubljana: Linguistics. Amsterdam, New York, p. 331-342. Steever, S. B., 1988. The Serial Verb Formation in the Dravidian Languages. Delhi. Steinbach, M., 2002. Middle Voice: A Comparative Study in the Syntax-Semantics Interface of German. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Stokes, W., 1887. The Old-Irish Glosses at Würzburg and Karlsruhe, edited with a translation and glossarial index. London, Cambridge. Stokes, W., Strachan, J., 1901-1903. Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus, A Collection of Old-Irish Glosses, Scholia, Prose and Verse. Cambridge, 2 volumes. Stolz, Th., 2013. Competing Comparative Constructions in Europe. Berlin, New York. Stone, G., 1993. ‘Sorbian (Upper and Lower)’. B. Comrie, G.C. Corbett (ed.). The Slavonic Languages. London, New York, p. 593-685. Strachan, J., 1909. An Introduction to Early Welsh. Manchester. Strunk, K., 1983. Typische Merkmale von Fragesätzen und die altindische ‘Pluti’. München. Sukač, R., Šefčík, O. & Dufková, K., 2014. ‘K původu a fungování staročeského supina’. Linguistica Brunensia, 62/2, p. 5-15. Sussex, R., Cubberley, P., 2014. The Slavic Languages. Cambridge. Svane, G. O., 1958. Grammatik der slowenischen Schriftsprache. Kopenhagen. Svorou, S., 1994. The Grammar of Space. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages 65

Szober, S., 61963. Gramatyka języka polskiego. Warszawa. Šarić, L., 2008. Spatial Concepts in Slavic. A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Prepositions and Cases. Wiesbaden. Taleghani, A. H., 2008. Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Tannen, D., 1982. ‘Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives’. Language, 58(1), p. 1-21. Teichmann, E., 2013. Handbuch Grammatik der albanischen Sprache. Teil I. München. Tekavčić, P., 1972. Grammatica storica dell’italiano, vol. II: Morfosintassi. Bologna. Ternes, E., 1992. ‘The Breton language’. D. Mac Aulay (ed.). The Celtic Languages. Cambridge, p. 371-452. Thomas, A. R., 1992. ‘The Welsh language’. D. MacAulay (ed.). The Celtic Languages. Cambridge, p. 251-345. Thomas, W., 1958. ‘Zum Ausdruck der Komparation beim tocharischen Adjektiv’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 75, p. 129-169. Thomason, S., 2010. ‘Contact explanations in linguistics’. R. Hickey (ed.). The Handbook of Language Contact. Chichester, Blackwell, p. 31-47. Thompson, H.R., 2012. Bengali. Amsterdam, Philadelphia. Thurneysen, R., 1946. A Grammar of Old Irish. Translated from the German by D. A. Binchy and Osborn Bergin, Dublin. Tiller, P. A., 2001. ‘Reflexive pronouns in the New Testament’. Filología Neotestamentaria, 14, p. 43-63. Timberlake, A., 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’. C. Li (ed.). Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin, p. 141-177. Tjerkstra, F. A., 1999. Principles of the Relation between Local Adverb, Verb and Sentence Particle in Hittite. Groningen. Tolegian, A., 1979. Armenian Poetry, Old and New. A Bilingual Anthology. Detroit. Tomić, O. M., 2004a. ‘The Balkan Sprachbund properties: An introduction’. O.M. Tomić (ed.). Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 1-55. —, 2004b. ‘The syntax of the Balkan Slavic future tenses’. Lingua, 114/4, p. 389-452. —, 2006. Balkan Sprachbund. Morpho-syntactic Features. Dordrecht. —, 2008. ‘Towards grammaticalization of clitic doubling. Clitic doubling in Macedonian and neighbouring languages’. D. Kallulli, L. Tasmowski (ed.), 2008. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 65- 87. Torrego, E., 1994. ‘On the nature of clitic doubling’. ASJU, 28-1, p. 199-213. Traugott, E.C., Trousdale, G., 2010. ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’. E.C. Traugott, G. Trousdale (ed.). Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam, p. 19-44. Trautmann, R., 1910. Die altpreußischen Sprachdenkmäler. Göttingen. Trépos, P., 1966-1967. Grammaire bretonne. Rennes. Trousdale, G., 2013. ‘Gradualness in language change: a constructional perspective’. A.G. Ramat, C. Mauri, P. Molinelli (ed.). Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, p. 27-42. Turano, G., 2000. ‘On clitics and negation in Albanian’. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa, 25, p. 81-117. Ultan, R., 1978. ‘Some general characteristics of interrogative systems’. J.H. Greenberg, Ch. A. Ferguson, E.A. Moravcsik (ed.). Universals of Human Language, volume 4. Syntax. Stanford, p. 211-248. Unbegaun, B.O., 1957. Russian Grammar. Oxford. Van der Auwera, J., 2009. ‘The Jespersen Cycles’. E. van Gelderen (ed.). Cyclical Change. Amsterdam, p. 35-71. —, 2010. ‘On the diachrony of negation’. L. R. Horn (ed.). The Expression of Negation. Berlin, New York, p. 74-109. Van der Wal, M. J., Quak, A., 1994. ‘Old and Middle Continental West Germanic’. E. König, J. van der Auwera (ed.). The Germanic languages. London, p. 72-109. Vaux, B., 1995. ‘A problem in diachronic Armenian verbal morphology’. J. Weitenberg (ed.). New Approaches to Medieval Armenian Language and Literature. Amsterdam, p. 135-148. Večerka, R., 1993-1996. Altkirchenslavische (altbulgarische) Syntax. Freiburg-in-Breisgau. Vennemann, Th., 1972. ‘Analogy in generative grammar, the origin of word order’. L. Heilmann (ed.). Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists. Bologna, II, p. 79-83. —, 1974. ‘Topics, subjects and word order: from SXV to SVX via TVX’. J. M. Anderson, Ch. Jones (ed.). Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam, p. 339-376. Visser, F. Th., 1963, 21970. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part I: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden. —, 1966. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part II: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden. Viti, C., 2007. Strategies of Subordination in Vedic. Milano. —, 2008. ‘The verb-initial word order in the early poetry of Vedic and Ancient Greek’. K. Jones-Bley (ed.). Proceedings of the nineteenth annual UCLA Indo-European conference, Los Angeles, November 2-3, 2007. Washington, p. 89-112. —, 2010. ‘The information structure of OVS in Vedic’. G. Ferraresi, R. Lühr (ed.). Diachronic Studies on Information Structure: Language Acquisition and Change. Berlin, New York, p. 37-62. —, 2011. ‘The use of the dual number in Homeric Greek’. Th. Krisch, Th. Lindner (ed.). Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog, Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 27. September 2008 in Salzburg. Wiesbaden, p. 595-604. —, 2015. Variation und Wandel in der Syntax der altern indogermanischen Sprachen. Tübingen. Vondrák, W., 1906-1908. Vergleichende slavische Grammatik. Göttigen, 2 volumes. Wackernagel J., 1877. ‘Zum homerischen dual’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 23, p. 302-310. —, 1926. Vorlesungen über Syntax. Basel, 2 volumes. Wade, T., 1992. A Comprehensive Russian Grammar. London. 66 Introduction to the Historical Syntax of the Indo-European Languages

Wali, K., Koul, O. N., 1997. Kashmiri. A Cognitive-Descriptive Account. London. Warmington, E.H., 1935-1940. Remains of Old Latin. London, Cambridge, 4 volumes. Watkins, C., 1963. ‘Preliminaries to a historical and comparative analysis of the syntax of the Old Irish verb’. Celtica, 6, p. 1-49 = 1994, p. 3-51. —, 1967. ‘Remarks on the genitive’. To Honor Roman Jakobson, Essays on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. New York, vol. III, p. 2191-2198. —, 1976. ‘Towards Proto-Indo-European syntax: problems and pseudo-problems’. S. Steever et alii (ed.). Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax. Chicago, p. 305-326 = 1994, p. 242-263. —, 1994. Selected Writings, Volume I: Language and Linguistics. L. Oliver (ed.), Innsbruck. Watkins, T. A., 1992. Kurze Beschreibung des Kymrischen. Innsbruck. Wedel, E., 1986. ‘Zur Struktur des Finalsatzes im Altrussischen’. Festschrift für Herbert Bräuer zum 65. Geburtstag. Wien, p. 729-747. West, M. L., 2011. Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics. Berlin, New York. Whitney, W. D., 1896. A Sanskrit Grammar, including both the Classical Language and the Older Dialects of Veda and Brahmana. Leipzig. Whitt, R.J., 2010. Evidentiality and Perception Verbs in English and German. Bern. Williams, I., 1930, 21951. Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi. Caerdydd. Williams, S. J., 1980. A Welsh Grammar. Cardiff. Willis, D., 2013. ‘Negation in the history of the Slavonic languages’. D. Willis, Ch. Lucas, A. Breitbarth (ed.). The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean, volume I. Case Studies. Oxford, p. 341- 398. Winkler, H., 1896. Germanische Casussyntax. Berlin. Winter, W., 1984. ‘Reconstructional comparative linguistics and the reconstruction of the syntax of undocumented stages in the development of languages and language families’. J. Fisiak (ed.). Historical Syntax. The Hague, p. 613-625. Yakubovich, I., 2013. ‘The degree of comparison in Luwian’. Indogermanische Forschungen, 118, p. 155-168. Yates, A. D., 2011. Homeric βῆ δ’ ἴ(μ)εναι: A Diachronic Approach. Dissertation, Athens, Georgia. —, 2013. ‘On the PIE ‘Quasi-Serial Verb’ construction: Origin and Development’. Paper presented at the 25th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 25-26 October 2013, p. 1-12. Yavad, R., 1996. A Reference Grammar of Maithili. Berlin, New York. Yoshida, D., 1987. Die Syntax des althethitischen substantivischen Genitivs. Heidelberg. Yoshida, Y., 2009. ‘Sogdian’. G. Windfuhr (ed.). The Iranian Languages. London, New York, p. 279-335. Zagona, K., 2002. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge. Ziemmer, H., 1884. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Comparation. Berlin. Žindžiutė-Michelini, B., 2007. Grammatica della lingua lituana. Vilnius. Zwolanek, R., 1970. Vā́ yav Índraśca. Studien zu Anrufungsformen im Vedischen, Avestischen und Griechischen. München.